212 US 449
Carino vs Insular Government
February 23, 1909
Facts:
Paris, April 11, 1899, as far back as the
findings go, the plaintiff and his ancestors had held the land as owners. His
grandfather had lived upon it, and had maintained fences sufficient for the
holding of cattle, according to the custom of the country, some of the fences,
it seems, having been of much earlier date. His father had cultivated parts and
had used parts for pasturing cattle, and he had used it for pasture in his
turn. They all had been recognized as owners by the Igorots, and he had
inherited or received the land from his father in accordance with Igorot
custom. No document of title, however, had issued from the Spanish Crown, and
although, in 1893-1894 and again in 1896-1897, he made application for one
under the royal decrees then in force, nothing seems to have come of it,
unless, perhaps, information that lands in Benguet could not be conceded until
those to be occupied for a sanatorium, etc., had been designated -- a purpose
that has been carried out by the Philippine government and the United States.
In 1901, the plaintiff filed a petition, alleging ownership, under the mortgage
law, and the lands were registered to him, that process, however, establishing
only a possessory title, it is said.
Issue:
(1) Whether the plaintiff owns the land.
The position of the government, shortly
stated, is that Spain assumed, asserted, and had title to all the land in the
Philippines except so far as it saw fit to permit private titles to be
acquired; that there was no prescription against the Crown.
Held:
The adjustment of royal lands wrongfully
occupied by private individuals in the Philippine Islands. This begins with the
usual theoretic assertion that, for private ownership, there must have been a
grant by competent authority; but instantly descends to fact by providing that,
for all legal effects, those who have been in possession for certain times
shall be deemed owners. For cultivated land, twenty years, uninterrupted, is
enough. For uncultivated, thirty. Art. 5. So that, when this decree went into effect,
the applicant's father was owner of the land by the very terms of the
decree.
No comments:
Post a Comment