MATEO CARIO vs.

THE INSULAR
GOVERNMENT
G.R. NO. 2746 DECEMBER 6, 1906

FACTS:
June 23, 1903, Mateo Carino by his attorney in fact, Metcalf A. Clarke, filed a petition in the Court of Land
Registration asking that he be inscribed as the owner of a tract of land in the municipality of Baguio, Benguet
containing 146 hectares.
But the Government of the Philippine Islands, appeared in the Court of Land Registration and opposed the
petition.
Judgment was entered in the Court of Land Registration in favor of the petitioner, from which
judgment the respondents appealed in accordance with the law then in force to the Court of First
Instance of the province of Benguet wherein the judgment was entered dismissing the petition.
The petitioner presented no documentary evidence of title, except a possessory information obtained in
1901. By the provisions of the Mortgage Law, under which this possessory information was obtained, it
produced only those effects which the laws give to mere possession.

The surrounding circumstances are incompatible with the existence of a grant, It is known that for nearly three
hundred years all attempts to convert the Igorots of the Province of Benguet to the Christian religion completely
failed.
So the provisions of the laws relating to the grant, adjustment, and sale of public were taken advantage of by
these deeds from the Government for these lands would be to presume something which did not exist.
The appellant says in his brief (p.10):
The Igorot, no less than the American Indian, is an aborigine, and is equally ignorant of the forms of law and
procedure necessary to protect his interests.
In 1894 the petitioner sought to obtain title from the Government in accordance with the laws then in force.
In 1901 he made a contract with Metalcalf A. Clarke, by the terms of which he agreed to sell the land to
Clarke for 6,000 pesos when he obtained title thereto from the Government, and this contract he does not
say that he is the owner, but simply that he is in possession thereof. The court below found that the land
is now worth upwards of P50,000.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Mateo is the rightful owner of the
land by virtue of his possession of it for some time.

HELD:
The plaintiff is not entitled to the benefits of paragraph 6 of section 54 of Act No. 926 , the Public Land
Act, for the reason that act is not applicable to the Province of Benguet.
All persons who by themselves or their predecessors in interest has been in the open, continuous
exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural public lands, as defined by said
Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, under a bona fide claim of ownership except as against the
Government, for a period of ten years next preceding the taking effect of this Act except when
prevented by war or force majeure, shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions
essential to a government grant and to have received the same, and shall be entitled to a certificate
of
title
to
such
land
under
the
provisions
of
this
chapter.
All applicants for lands must establish by proper official records or documents that such
proceedings as are therein required were taken and the necessary conditions complied with;
Provided, however, that such requirements shall not apply to the fact of adverse possession.

The possession of the land has not been of such a character as to require the presumption of a
grant. No one has lived upon it for many years. It was never used for anything but pasturage of animals,
except insignificant portions thereof, and since the insurrection against Spain it has apparently not been
used by the petitioner for any purpose.
While the State has always recognized the right of the occupant to a deed if he proves a possession for a
sufficient length of time, yet it has always insisted that he must make that proof before the proper
administrative officers, and obtain from them his deed, and until he did the State remained the
absolute owner. (Valenton et al. vs. Marciano)
(Unlike in US vs. Chaves) In this case that the possession was not a duration long enough to justify any
such inference.

DISCUSSION:
LEGAL REALISTS: common law adjudication is an inherently subjective system that produces
inconsistent and sometimes incoherent results that are largely based on the political, social,
moral predilections of (state and federal) judges
LEGAL REALISM 5 strands of thought: (based on US Legal Realism movement)
1. Power and economics of society
Law represents the will of societys most powerful members
Platos Republic: in every govt, laws are made by the ruling party in its own interest, and
the ruling element is always the strongest.
What the court considers as what is right and just = in the interest of those established in
power
Realists economic analysis spawned Critical Legal Studies movement
Law must be utilized to redistribute wealth, power, and liberty so that every citizen is
guaranteed a minimum level of dignity and equality
2. Persuasion and characteristics of individual judges
Relativistic view: law is nothing more than what a particular court says it is on a given day,
and that the outcome to a legal dispute will vary according to the political, cultural, religious
persuasion of presiding judge

DISCUSSION:
LEGAL REALISM 5 strands of thought:
3. Societys welfare
sociological jurisprudence law must serve the interests of the greatest
number of people in society (Bentham utilitarian jurisprudence)
some realists most fragile members of society
4. Practical approach to a durable result
Legal pragmatism or result-oriented jurisprudence - sought to employ
common-law principles to resolve legal disputes in the most practical way
4 step-process (for judges when rendering an opinion):
1. identify the competing interests, values, policies at stake in the lawsuit;
2. survey the range of alternative approaches to resolving the legal issues
presented by the lawsuit;
3. weigh the likely consequences of each approach considering the effect
a particular decision may have on not only the parties to the lawsuit but
also other individuals faced with similar legal problems
4. Choose a response that will yield the most durable result in the course
of the law

DISCUSSION:
LEGAL REALISM 5 strands of thought:
5. Synthesis of legal philosophies
Legal empiricism empiricists: Law is best explained as a prediction of what judges
will do in a particular case
Lawyers can predict the outcome of legal disputes by examining the judicial behavior
of a given court
Assumption: judicial behavior can be influenced by political, economic,
sociological, practical, and historical considerations, as well as personal and
psychological prejudices and idiosyncracies
CONCLUSION:
Given the decision arrived at by the ponente in the case, wherein the lower courts dismissal of the
petition was affirmed, based on a procedural technicality statute not applicable to province of
Benguet, the ruling was based on legal pragmatism. Employing the same pragmatic approach with
consideration of the power and economics then at play, the ponente appeared to have put greater
weight on the fact that the land to which the plaintiff was seeking a title of ownership for was a public
agricultural land, and in the absence of proof (deed or title) relative to the claim of ownership, the
State remained the absolute owner. This goes without saying that the ruling accorded entitlement to
the State or government over the petitioner (private party) in this case, which is in consonance with
the thought espoused by the Legal Realism movement pertaining to power and economics in society.