8/13/2019 87583228 Carino v the Insular Government
1/2
Mateo Carino (plaintiff in error) vs. Insular Government of the
Philippines (defendant in error)212 US 449 41 Phil
!usti"e #olmes
#o$ it rea"hed the "ourt%& Plaintiff applied for
re'istration of a "ertain land. Initiall it $as 'ranted the "ourt
ut the
Government of the Philippines and the 'overnment of the United
states appealed to theCourt of first instan"e of *en'uet (the $ere
ta+in' the propert for pu li" and militarpurposes. ,he C-I
dismissed the appli"ation (for re'istration) and this $as affirmed
thePhilippine Supreme Court. ,his $as rou'ht to the US Supreme
"ourt $rit of error.
-a"ts%& Plaintiff an I'orot possessed the land for more than
/ ears efore the treat of Paris. #e
and his an"estors had held the land for ears. ,he lo"al "ommunit
re"o'ni0es them as theo$ners of the said land. #is 'randfather
lived upon it and maintained fen"es around thepropert . #is father
raised "attle on the propert and he had inherited the land
a""ordin' toI'orot "ustom. lthou'h no title $as issued to them from
the Spanish Cro$n. #e tried t$i"eto have it re'istered durin' the
Spanish o""upation ut to no avail. In 19/1 he filed apetition
alle'in' o$nership of the land ut he $as onl 'ranted a possessor
title.
& Premilinar issues.o hether the mode of rea"hin' the US
supreme "ourt $as ri'ht (this $as a $rit of
error some $ere sa in' that it should have een an appeal) 3
#olmes said that themode $as "orre"t. rit of error $as the 'eneral
rule appeal is the e "eption. #e sa$no reason not to appl the
'eneral rule to this "ase.
o nother issue $as that even if Carino $as a le to have a title
over the land he "ouldnot have it re'istered e"ause *en'uet $as one
of the e "luded provin"es in thePhilippine Commission5s a"t no. 926
( 7 C, P8 SC8I*I7G 8U: S 7; 8 GU: ,I
