Title
Carino vs. The Insular Government
Case
G.R. No. L-2869
Decision Date
Mar 25, 1907
Mateo Carino sought land registration for 40 hectares in Baguio, but the court ruled it public property, rejecting his claims of possession, prescription, and insufficient possessory information under Spanish law.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 129103)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Petition and Subject Matter
    • On February 23, 1904, Mateo Carino filed Petition No. 561 in the Court of Land Registration seeking registration of ownership to a parcel of land in Baguio, Benguet, described as follows:
      • Area: 40 hectares, 1 are, and 13 centiares
      • Improvements: Wooden house roofed with rimo
      • Boundaries:
        • North – 1,048 m 20 dm abutting lands of Sepa Carino, H. P. Whitmarsh, and Calsi
        • East – 991 m 50 dm abutting lands of Kuidno, Esteban Gonzales, and the Civil Government
        • South – 115 m 60 dm abutting lands of Talaca
        • West – 982 m 20 dm abutting lands of Sisco Carino and Mayengmeng
    • The Insular Government opposed, contending the entire tract was public land never alienated by the State.
  • Consolidation and Trial
    • Petition No. 561 was consolidated with Petition No. 834 (Antonio Rebollo and Vicente Valpiedad) due to overlapping claims on a portion of the same land.
    • Trial proceeded on documentary and oral evidence, including:
      • Possessory information filed March 7, 1901 (registered March 11, 1901), describing only 28 hectares along the country road to barrio Pias
      • Carino’s testimony and that of Government witnesses regarding his occupancy history
  • Possession History
    • 1884–1893: Carino erected a domicile on land north of the present claim (Donaldson Sim’s property), sold it to Cristobal Ramos, who later sold it to Sim
    • 1893–1897: Carino resided on adjacent Whitmarsh property (formerly occupied by his wife’s ancestors Ortega and Minse)
    • Circa 1897–1898: Carino relocated to and built a house on the land now claimed, occupying “some portion” since then
  • Trial Court Decision
    • Found Carino’s predecessors and Carino himself never possessed exclusively and adversely the entire 40 ha prior to construction of the house
    • Determined the only valid documentary claim was to 28 ha as per the possessory information, which did not qualify under Spanish law for free patent
    • Dismissed both petitions and adjudged the property as public land

Issues:

  • Whether Carino established private ownership of the claimed parcel under Spanish or American law
  • Whether the possessory information of March 1901 conferred title by composición or prescription
  • Whether Act No. 627 and Act No. 648 allow registration of lands exceeding 16 hectares by ten-year prescription
  • Whether the land remained public as classified by the Government and subject solely to its disposition

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.