CANSINO V VALDEZ

In this case the plaintiff, Magdalena Cansino, bought the property in question, as public lands of the
State from the Spanish Government and received a deed therefor on the 27th of October, 1893. In
the former case the plaintiffs went into possession of the land in 1860 and claimed ownership thereof
by the extraordinary prescription of thirty years. In this case some of the defendants testified that
they went into possession in 1862 and they claimed the ownership of this land by the same
extraordinary prescription. In either one of the cases did the occupants have any written title to the
land.

In Valenton vs. Murciano we decided that title to lands such as were involved in that case could not
be acquired by prescription while they were the property of the State. The decision in that case
governs and controls this case and upon its authority judgment in this case was affirmed.

CARINO V INSULAR GOVT

FACTS:
Carino is an Igorot of the Province of Benguet, where the land lies filed for writ of error
because the CFI and SC dismissed his petition for application
For more than 50 years before the Treaty of Paris, April 11, 1899, he and his ancestors
had held the land as recognized owners by the Igorots. (grandfather maintain fences for
holding cattle>father had cultivated parts andused parts for pasturing cattle>he used it for
pasture)
1893-1894 & 1896-1897: he made an application but with no avail
1901: petition alleging ownership under the mortgage law and the lands were registered
to him but process only established possessory title.
Even if the applicant have title, he cannot have it registered, because the Philippine
Commission's Act No. 926, of 1903, excepts the Province of Benguet among others from its
operation
the government's contention is so far correct that the Crown of Spain in form
asserted a title to this land at the date of the Treaty of Paris, to which the United
States succeeded,

ISSUE: W/N Carino has ownership and is entitled to registration.

HELD: YES. Petition Granted.

Land was not registered, and therefore became, if it was not always, public land.
Spanish Law: "Where such possessors shall not be able to produce title deeds, it shall
be sufficient if they shall show that ancient possession, as a valid title by prescription." For
cultivated land, 20 years, uninterrupted, is enough. For uncultivated,30.
Applicant's possession was not unlawful, and no attempt at any such proceedings
against him or his father ever was made.
Every native who had not a paper title is not a trespasser.
There must be a presumption against the government when a private individual claims
property as his or her own. It went so far as to say that the lands will be deemed private
absent contrary proof.
JONES V INSULAR

FACTS:

On the 16th day of January, 1904 F. Stewart Jones presented a

petition to the Court of Land Registration asking that he be inscribed
as the owner of a certain tract of land situatd in the Province of
Benguet, and within the reservation defined in Act No. 636. irt

OSG’S CONTENTION:
The Solicitor-General appeared in the court below and opposed the
inscription upon the ground that the property was public land. At
the trial he objected to any consideration of the case on the ground
that the court had no jurisdiction to register land situated in that
reservation. The objections were overruled and judgment entered in
favor of the petitioner, from which judgment the Government
appealed to this court. chanroble

ISSUE: W/N THE CLR HAS JURISDICTION

HELD: Act No. 648 conferred power upon the Governor to reserve lands for public purposes, but it did
not make that power exclusive. The Commission did not thereby deprive itself of the power to itself
make reservations in the future, if it saw fit; neither did it intend to annul any reservations which it had
formerly made. The contention of the Government is true when applied to a case where the land has
not been reserved by the Commission. In such a case it would be the duty of the Governor to first
reserve it by an executive order, and then to give notice to the Court of Land Registration, but where the
land had already been reserved by competent authority, it not only was not necessary for the Governor
to issue any executive order reserving the land but he had no power to do so. In such cases the only
duty imposed upon him was to give notice to the Court of Land Registration that the land had been
reserved. This notice was given in the letter above quoted. The court had jurisdiction to try the case.