1PP v. Carino

G.R. No.
2869 March 25, 1907
MATEO CARIÑO, petitioner-appellant,
vs.
THE INSULAR GOVERNMENT, respondent-appellee
FACTS:
 Mateo Cariño, the appellant herein, on the 23d of February, 1904, filed his petition in
the Court of Land Registration praying that there be granted to him title to a parcel of
land consisting of 40 hectares, 1 are, and 13 centares, and situated in the town of
Baguio, Province of Benguet, together with a house erected thereon and constructed
of wood and roofed with rimo, and bounded as follows: On the north, in lines running
1,048 metes and 20 decimeters with the lands of Sepa Cariño, H. Phelps
Whitmarsh, and Calsi; on the east, in lines running 991 meters and 50 decimeters
with the land of Kuidno, Esteban Gonzales, and of the Civil Government; on the
south, in lines of 115 meters and 60 decimeters, with the lands of Talaca; and on the
west, in lines running 982 meters and 20 decimeters, with the lands of Sisco Cariño
and Mayengmeng.
 By order of the court the hearing of this petition, No. 561, and that of Antonio Rebollo
and Vicente Valpiedad filed under No. 834, were heard together for the reason that
the latter petition claimed a small portion of land included in the parcel set out in the
former petition.
 The Insular Government opposed the granting of these petitions, alleging that the
whole parcel of land is public property of the Government and that the same was
never acquired in any manner or through any title of egresion from the State.
 The court of Land Registration rendered its judgment finds that Cariño and his
predecessors have not possessed exclusively and adversely any part of the said
property prior to the date on which Cariño constructed the house now there — that is
to say, for the years 1897 and 1898, and Cariño held possession for some years
afterwards of but a part of the property to which he claims title. Both petitions are
dismissed and the property in question is adjudged to be public land
ISSUE: WON Carino the true possessor of the land in question.
RULING: NO
 Under the express provisions of law, a parcel of land, being of common origin,
presumptively belonged to the State during its sovereignty, and, in order to perfect
the legitimate acquisition of such land by private persons, it was necessary that the
possession of the same pass from the State. And there is no evidence or proof of
title of egresion of this land from the domain of the Spanish Government, nor is there
any possessory information equivalent to title by composicion or under agreement.
 In accordance with the preceding provisions, the right that remained to Cariño, if it
be certain that he was the true possessor of the land in question, was the right of
average in case the Government or State could have sold the same within the period
of five years immediately following for example, if the denouncement of purchase
had been carried out by Felipe Zafra or any other person, as appears from the
record of the trial of the case. Aside from this right, in such event, his possession as
attested in the possessory information herein could not, in accordance with common
law, go to show any right of ownership until after the expiration of twenty years from
the expiration of twenty years from the verification and registry of the same in
conformity with the provisions of article 393 of the Mortgage Law and other
conditions prescribe by this law.
 The right of possession in accordance with common law — that is

to say, civil law — remains at all times subordinate to the Spanish
administrative law, inasmuch as it could only be of force when
pertaining to royal transferable or alienable lands, which condition
and the determination thereof is reversed to the government,
which classified and designated the royal alienable lands for the
purpose of distinguishing them from those lands strictly public,
and from forestry lands which could at no time pass to private
ownership nor be acquired through time even after the said royal
decree of February 13, 1894.
 Section 6 of Act No. 627 admits prescription, in accordance with the

provisions contained in Act No. 190, as a basis for obtaining the right of
ownership. "The petitioners claims title under the period of prescription of
ten years established by that act, as well as by reason of his occupancy
and use thereof from time immemorial." (Allegation 1.) But said act admits
such prescription for the purpose of obtaining title and ownership to lands
"not exceeding more that sixteen hectares in extent." (Sec. 6 of said act.)
The land claimed by Cariño is 40 hectares in extent, if we take into
consideration his petition, or an extension of 28 hectares, according to the
possessory information, the only thing that can be considered. Therefore, it
follows that the judgment denying the petition herein and now appealed
from was strictly in accordance with the law invoked herein.
 And of the 28 hectares of land as set out in the possessory information,

one part of same, according to the testimony of Cariño, belongs to Vicente
Valpiedad, the extent of which is not determined. From all of which it
follows that the precise extent has not been determined in the trial of this
case on which judgment might be based in the event that the judgment
and title be declared in favor of the petitioner, Mateo Cariño. And we
should not lose sight of the fact that, considering the intention of Congress
in granting ownership and title to 16 hectares, that Mateo Cariño and his
children have already exceeded such amount in various acquirements of
lands, all of which is shown in different cases decided by the said Court of
Land Registration, donations or gifts of land that could only have been
made efficacious as to the conveyance thereof with the assistance of these
new laws.

1PP v. Carino

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1PP v. Carino

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1PP v. Carino

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

2869 March 25, 1907

ISSUE: WON Carino the true possessor of the land in question.

 The right of possession in accordance with common law — that is

 Section 6 of Act No. 627 admits prescription, in accordance with the

 And of the 28 hectares of land as set out in the possessory information,

You might also like