G.R. No. 9408 - Cacho vs. Government of the United States

The case involves Dona Demetria Cacho, petitioner and appellant, who filed a petition to have her title adjudicated and registered for two parcels of land situated within the Camp Overton military reservation in the municipality of Iligan, Moro Province, Philippine Islands.
The lands in question are identified in two separate cases (No. 6908 and No. 6909) with detailed descriptions and corresponding plans attached as exhibits to the record.
The Government of the United States, represented by the commanding general of the Division of the Philippines and his officers, opposed the registration on the ground that the parcels were part of public, military reservation lands acquired through cession from Spain by virtue of the Treaty of Paris.

In Case No. 6908, the small parcel was purchased by the applicant from Gabriel Salzos.

The deed of sale, dated September 14, 1904 (stating the sale occurred on December 17, 1903), traces the title of Salzos back to a deed executed by a Moro woman named Alanga on behalf of her husband, Datto Darondon.
Questions were raised regarding the absence of a required power of attorney or other legal authorization from the male head (Moro Darondon) when the deed was executed.

In Case No. 6909, a larger parcel of approximately 37.87 hectares (over 90 acres) was purchased directly by the applicant from the Moro, Datto Bunglay.

The deed of sale for this parcel is dated January 15, 1904, although it was not acknowledged before a notary public until March 15, 1910.

The land had been cleared and cultivated by Datto Darondon and his wife Aianga long before American occupation.
Fruit trees including coco, mango, lanzones, and other varieties were established on the parcel, with local witnesses testifying on the age and continuity of cultivation (generally estimated to be between 20 to 25 years).

The land stretches along the beach between the mouths of the Nunucan and Agus Rivers and includes the entire target range of Camp Overton.
Testimonies regarding cultivation were somewhat contradictory. Evidence showed varying degrees of clearing, tree planting, and habitation by different Moro claimants or residents such as Datto Dalano, his nephew Datto Bunglay, and witnesses familiar with established patterns of Moro agricultural custom.
Noted physical evidence included remaining fruit trees, an alleged tubatuba hedge, and signs of abandoned cultivation, although some features (e.g., the hedge) could not be conclusively found during subsequent inspections.

Part of the larger parcel became occupied in 1902 when American troops established a camp (designated Camp No. 1 or Camp Nunucan) and later used the cleared portion as a target range.
Official letters and documents, including eyewitness testimonies, confirm the timeline of military occupation and subsequent land abandonment until reinspection in 1904.

The deeds executed, particularly that of the Moro woman Alanga and the deed from Datto Bunglay, raised issues on validity concerning the required consent of the male head under Moro customary law and the Civil Code of the Philippine Islands.
Testimonies and documentary evidence indicated that among the Moros, land ownership was largely based on customary practices—differentiating between personal, cultivated land (usufruct rights) and the communal property of a tribe or datto’s jurisdiction.
Additional evidentiary details include:

Testimonies by Moro witnesses such as Mora Aianga, Datto Duroc, and Datto Bunglay regarding long-standing possession, cultivation practices, and the customary non-commercial nature of land transactions among Moros.
Historical context provided concerning the tribal and patriarchal organization of Moro society, where each datto’s authority over land did not always equate to individual private ownership.

The Government of the United States argued that the sale and subsequent registration of the lands were void under Act No. 718 since they involved rights in lands that were public military reservations or constituents of Moro tribal common property.
The court, however, noted that while the law restricts the transfer of communal tribal lands by Moro chiefs or dattos, it does not necessarily bar an individual Moro from transferring rights in land that he alone cultivated or possessed as his personal domiciliary property.
An agreement was reached between the parties wherein:

The application was heard jointly for both parcels.
A new survey and corrected plan were ordered to specifically demarcate the part of the large parcel cultivated by the late Datto Anandog.
The applicant was required to secure and present a subsequent deed from Datto Darondon (husband of Alanga) renouncing his rights before the registration could be finalized.

Whether the sale and registration of the parcels—particularly the deed executed by a Moro woman (Alanga) without the explicit authorization of her husband (Datto Darondon)—comply with both Moro customary law and the applicable civil law provisions.
Whether the absence of a notarized power of attorney or formal authorization invalidates the deed as a conveyance of private property rights among Moros.

Whether the provisions of Act No. 718, which prohibit the cession of rights in land held in common by a Moro tribe or datto, apply to the individual transactions entered into by non-chief members or relatives acting in their own capacity.
Whether restricting the sale of cultivated land by a Moro individual, as opposed to a tribal chief or representative, is appropriate under the law.

Whether the continuous, open, and adverse possession by Datto Darondon (and by extension, his spouse) over the small parcel qualifies as a basis of title despite the procedural irregularities in the execution of the deed.
For the large parcel, whether the evidence of cultivation and occupancy by Datto Anandog and other Moro claimants meets the requirements for establishing private ownership against the Government’s contention of it being part of a military reservation or communal property.