The Mateo Carino Doctrine

The Mateo Carino Doctrine stemmed from the case in the United States Supreme Court –Carino vs. Insular Government of the Philippine Islands, 212 U.S. 449 (1909), where Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes delivered the opinion of the court recognizing “native title” to valid land rights established by testimonies or memories on land that has been held, occupied and utilized in ownership since time immemorial by indigenous populations.

This landmark decision has been used even in arguing cases of land ownership disputes filed by the Indians of Canada, the United States and Maori of New Zealand, in addition to the Philippines



National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA)


The nominator is the primary cultural agency of the Philippine government

that includes under its umbrella all the other cultural agencies such as the National Museum, National Library, National Historical Institute, Records Management and Archives Office, and Cultural Center of the Philippines.

2.3 Contact Person(s) :

2.3.1 Evelyn B. Pantig, Chairman, NCCA

2.3.2 Ms. Maria Fina C. Yonzon, Executive Director, NCCA

2.3.3 Dr. Jesus T. Peralta, Consultant, in charge of nomination process

2.3.4 Prof. Felipe M. de Leon Jr., Head, Memory of the World Committee

2.3.5 Ms. Cecilia V. Picache, Project Development Officer, NCCA

2.4 Contact details (address, phone, fax, email)


The U.S Supreme Court :

Carino v. Insular Government of the Philippine Islands, 212 U.S. 449 (1909); 212 U.S. 449,

Mateo Carino, Plff. In Err.,

v.

Insular Government of the Philippine Islands

No. 72

Argued January 13, 1909

Decided February 23, 1909

Original Records of the case are with the United States Supreme Court.

The Mateo Carino Doctrine had its roots in 1901 when Mateo, the patriarch of the Carino clan, members of the native Ibaloi ethnic group of the Benguet Province in the Cordilleras of Northern Luzon, Philippines petitioned the Land Registration Court of the Philippines government for a title covering 148 hectares of the Camp John Hay reservation in the City of Baguio, which the group has been occupying since time immemorial as natives of the land. The motion was granted.

In 1904 the government appealed the decision of the Land Registration Court with the Court of First Instance claiming that Carino had no right over the land since he was not able to present any Spanish title. The Court of First Instance ruled in favor of the government.

Carino appealed the decision of the court of First Instance with the United States Supreme Court. The court upheld Carino’s rights over the property, ruling in effect the establishment and recognition of “native title” to the property. The ruling, penned by Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes is the Mateo Carino Doctrine, that recognizes as valid land rights established by testimonies or memories that the land has been held, occupied and utilized in ownership since time immemorial.

This landmark decision has been used in arguing cases of land ownership by the Indians of Canada, the United States and the Maori of New Zealand. Unfortunately, in an irony, the Carino case in the Philippines has not yet been resolved despite the fact that native tribal doctrine has been embodied in the Native Title Act and established as a principle of international law.

The original document is at present with the U.S. Supreme Court and is accessible through the World Wide Web, FindLAW, Lawyer and Law Firm Directory. However, this document is buried by time and blurred from memory. It should be recognized as a landmark of modern jurisprudence upholding the rights of natives to their ancestral land.

Referees:
a.)Records Management and Archives Office (RMAO)

T.M. Kalaw St., Metro-Manila, Philippines

b) National Commission on Indigenous Peoples

D&E Bldg, Cr. Roces and Quezon Ave., Quezon city, Philippines
National Museum, P.Burgos, St., Ermita, Metro-Manila, Philippines.

Justification for inclusion/assessment against criteria

The authenticity of the document is without question since it is in the records of the Supreme Court of the United States, and relevant Philippine courts and accessible through cyberspace.

The Mateo Carino Doctrine is internationally significant, cross cutting through the different ethnic communities of the world, since it is the landmark law that established for the first time the rights of indigenous peoples to their ancestral land. It has been used in Canada, the United States and New Zealand, at least. Although little known, and while there is no danger that it will be lost, except in memory, its influence in disposition of native land against later legislations is incalculable. It has in fact been responsible for the upholding by the Philippine Supreme Court of the constitutionality of the Indigenous People’s Act (Republic Act 8371).

Criteria:

Time – Since the drawing of the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in February 1909 to the present upholding by the Philippine Supreme Court of the constitutionality of the the Indigenous People’s Act, and the existence of the Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) to this date the principle that indigenous peoples have valid claims to their ancestral land, stands. The validity of this principle remains to date until indigenous people’s rights are finally integrated in the laws of the land.
and (c) Place/People – In any country where there are indigenous populations living in pluralistic societies where they remain the minority, and where there is a clash between their rights to their ancestral land and the existing civil land regulations including cadastral surveys and titles, the Mateo Carino Doctrine remain a principle in land ownership that uphold ethnic peoples’ rights. The Mateo Carino Doctrine, as stated above as been used in arguments in cases of Indian claims in Canada, the United States and among the Maori of New Zealand. While the doctrine has been upheld by subsequent laws of the Philippines, the Carino land claim has not yet been resolved.
Subject and Theme – The subject of the heritage is the first international judicial proclamation of indigenous people’s right over their ancestral land, the principle that ethnic peoples of any country where there exist a plural society, and where there is a conflict with existing laws with regard to land ownership, have a “native title” to the land they occupied since time immemorial.

Rarity, Integrity, threat and Management –

The opinion of Justice Holms contains the first use of the term, “native title” in any legal proceedings, which served as the basis for the final recognition of the land rights of indigenous peoples. It is a landmark in jurisprudence. It is rare in that it was the initial move that resulted in a chain of legislation. The integrity of this heritage is unquestionable since it emanated from the proceedings of the Supreme court of the United States. In the Philippines, the National Commission for Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) is implementing it under Republic Act 8371.

LEGAL INFORMATION

Owner of the documentary heritage – The Supreme Court of the United States

Custodian of the documentary heritage – The Supreme Court of the United States

Legal Status –

(a) Category of ownership – judicial act

(b) Accessibility – the U.S. Supreme Court, Philippine courts, cyberspace

(c) Copyright Status - public domain

(d) Responsible administration – relevant courts

6. MANAGEMENT PLAN

6.1 Management Plan – There is at present no management plan of this documentary heritage, however, its implementation in other form of legislation is being carried out by the NCIP.

7. CONSULTATION

7.1 No consultation have been made on this heritage other than with the descendants of the Mateo Carino clan, who was the plaintiff in this landmark case.

PART B – SUBSIDIARY INFORMATION
ASSESSMENT OF RISK
Nature and Scope of Threat – There is no threat to the document itself but

only to the application of the essential provision of it as in the Philippine case, where the implementation of RA 8371 is hindered by the issuance of a title in the name of Camp John Hay reservation, although the U.S. government clarified that it did not call for the title’s issuance and may not be included in actions arising from the document. The clarification indicates that there were serious infirmities or irregularities in the process and issuance of the title. The title was sufficient to deprive Mateo Carino of his right to the land. Carino’s claim is still pending in the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) in the Cordilleras.