G.R. No. 2869 – 8 Phil. 150 – Civil Law – Land Titles and Deeds – Ancestral Domain – Ancestral Land Claim
Political Law – Regalian Doctrine
In February 1904, Mateo Cariño filed a claim before the Court of Land Registration praying that he be granted title over a 40 hectare land in the then town of Baguio, Province of Benguet.
The government filed its opposition as it averred that Cariño or his predecessors in interest did not continuously, exclusively, and adversely possessed the said parcel of land. Cariño interposed that he and his ancestors had been in possession over said parcel of land since time immemorial. And that in 1901, Cariño filed a claim under the mortgage law over said parcel of land.
The government maintained that whatever right Cariño and his predecessors had over the said parcel of land, the same had already prescribed by reason of their failure to register their title during the Spanish Era. Under Spanish Law (specifically, a decree issued in 1880), a land privately held, if not registered, shall revert back to the public (regalian doctrine).
ISSUE: Whether or not Cariño’s claim must be granted.
HELD: No. Cariño was not able to support his claim. As a rule, 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.
The parcel of land being contested here was not part of the lands disposed off during the Spanish Era. The last disposition made by the Spanish government was in 1894. The lands disposed in 1894 did not include the land being claimed by Cariño hence, said land is presumed to belong to the State.
It is true that the American Government (which was then ruling the Philippines at the time of this case) provided that prescription may favor a land claimant but only in instances where the Spanish Government has allowed the claimant to cultivate an unappropriated land. There was no showing that Cariño or his predecessors in interest were allowed to cultivate said land (title of egresion or title of composicion). In short, Cariño or his predecessors in interest failed to show that they were able to comply with the legal requisites for them to acquire title.
His claim of title under the mortgage law is only possessory. He must wait for twenty years to lapse before such can ripen to ownership.
Note:
This case is closely related with the other Mateo Cariño vs Insular Government promulgated in December 1906.
This case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The latter reversed this decision (as well as the 1907 case): Full Text ¦ Case Digest
The decision laid down by the US Supreme Court was a landmark case which helped in the protection of indigenous communities.
