SALIENTE, GLESA MAY G.

JD 1-5
LAW ON NATURAL RESOURCES

Cariño Doctrine is the exception to the Regalian Doctrine which dictates

that all lands not appearing to be clearly of private dominion presumably
belong to the State. The doctrine states that land does not belong to the
State when there is an existence of native title to land, or ownership of land
by Filipinos by virtue of possession under a claim of ownership since time
immemorial and independent of any grant from the Spanish Crown.

This doctrine came from the case of Cariño vs Insular Government which
was decided by the United States Supreme Court. In the said case, the
Court decided in favor of the plaintiff which is an Igorot of the Province of
Benguet. It was held that the Igorot owned the land before the conquest of
Spaniards and had not lost its right when the United States took over. The
Court did not rely on the previous US case of North American Indians in
which they did not recognize the Indian title claim since the acquisition of
the Philippines was not like the settlement of the white race in the United
States which is to occupy the land. On the contrary, the purpose of the
United States in taking over the Philippines is to give the natives justice and
not exploit them. The Igorots were not brought under the control of the
Spaniards and their lands are presumed to be private.

The Court wisely decided the matter of the case. When the United
States took over the Philippines, the Philippines Bill of 1902 was enacted
wherein the Bill of Rights is embodied. It is written that every individual is
entitled for a due process. In its decision, the plaintiff was given such. The
Court recognized the ownership of Igorot to the property not because of
title given by the Spaniards but because of custom, long association and
practice and belief.

There are several Philippines and US decisions which cited the case of
Cariño as basis for their decision. According to Dante Gatmaytan in his
article regarding the Cariño Doctrine, the decision in the case has been
continuously misinterpreted in both jurisdictions.

In the Philippines, the Cariño doctrine was used as a basis in the Public
Land Act which allows registration of public lands as private possession if
the claimant has been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession of the said lands for thirty years.

In the case of De Palas vs Saito and Madrazo, the Supreme Court held
that even if members of Bagobo tribe are considered owners of the land,
the sale of property without the approval of the Director of the Non-
Christian tribes is null and void.

There seem to be confusion in the application of the Cariño doctrine. As

cited by Gatmaytan, “there are two streams of cases in the Philippines, both
as prominent, as they are glaringly contradictory. In one line, lands held
since time immemorial are recognized as private. It has even been held that
subsequent reclassification of land cannot impair the rights of long-term
occupants. In the other line, public agricultural lands become private lands
and could therefore be titled. This is if the claimant can show that there has
been continuous possession thereof for at least thirty years. Cariño has been
cited as authority for both. A recent case cited both lines of cases without
the Court observing any incongruity.”

The Justices of the Supreme Court should have noted that the lands
claimed by the Igorots in the original case of Carino were not considered as
public. In allowing other inhabitants to claim the land as private when
residing there for thirty years would limit the sovereign power of the State
over its territories.

The US Courts also used the doctrine of Cariño in some of their

decisions. . In Pueblo de Sta. Rosa v. Fall, the Court explained that the title
of the Indian inhabitants of a pueblo in Mexico has been recognized not
only by the Mexican, but also by Spanish laws. Such recognition rests not
upon title by grant or charter from the crown, but it may be established and
was frequently established by prescription. It cited Cariño to stress that
prescription against the Crown was recognized by Spanish laws.
Unfortunately, the court’s reliance upon Cariño was merely to recognize
the right of the claimant through prescription, and not to reaffirm the rule
that lands held since time-immemorial are private lands.

The error of both jurisdictions is their claim that Cariño doctrine is

authority to the decision of Court to grant land title through prescription.
This doctrine has been long standing and has been cited in several cases.
However, there are misinterpretations to its application. It is not too late
for the Court to clear the matter.