Carino v. Insular Government
Carino v. Insular Government
Carino v. Insular Government
9. And of the 28 hectares of land as set out in the possessory information, one
part of same, according to the testimony of Cariño, belongs to Vicente
Valpiedad, the extent of which is not determined. From all of which it follows
that the precise extent has not been determined in the trial of this case on
which judgment might be based in the event that the judgment and title be
declared in favor of the petitioner, Mateo Cariño. And we should not lose sight
of the fact that, considering the intention of Congress in granting ownership
and title to 16 hectares, that Mateo Cariño and his children have already
exceeded such amount in various acquirements of lands, all of which is shown
in different cases decided by the said Court of Land Registration, donations or
gifts of land that could only have been made efficacious as to the conveyance
thereof with the assistance of these new laws.
By reason of the findings set forth it is clearly seen that the court below did not
err:
1. In finding that Mateo Cariño and those from whom he claims his
right had not possessed and claimed as owners the lands in question
since time immemorial;
2. In finding that the land in question did not belong to the petitioner,
but that, on the contrary, it was the property of the Government.
(Allegation 21.)
Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed with the costs of this
instance against the appellant. After the expiration of twenty days from the
notification of this decision let judgment be entered in accordance herewith,
and ten days thereafter let the case be remanded to the court from whence it
came for proper action. So ordered.