Roura v. Government of the Philippine Islands

218 U.S. 386, 31 S. Ct. 73, 54 L. Ed. 1080, 1910 U.S. LEXIS 2034
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedNovember 28, 1910
Docket35
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 218 U.S. 386 (Roura v. Government of the Philippine Islands) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Roura v. Government of the Philippine Islands, 218 U.S. 386, 31 S. Ct. 73, 54 L. Ed. 1080, 1910 U.S. LEXIS 2034 (1910).

Opinion

Mr. Justice White

delivered the opinion of the court.

Maria and Juana Roura petitioned the Court of Land Registration to register their alleged title as undivided equal owners of a piece of real estate situated in the pueblo of San Miguel de Mayumo, province of Bulacan. See for the general functions of the Court of Land Registration, Carino v. Insular Government, 212 U. S. 449; Reavis v. Fianza, 215 U. S. 16. This writ of error is prosecuted to a judgment of the Supreme Court affirming the trial court in refusing, on the opposition of the insular government, the prayer for registration.'

The right to prosecute the writ is challenged on the ground that the amount involved is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction, and because there are no questions arising adequate alone to give jurisdiction. Without going into detail, we say,, in view of the affidavits filed in this court concerning the value of the property, after allowing for the elements of speculation possibly entering into the amount fixed in the affidavits, we think, in the absence of affidavits in rebuttal, a sufficient, showing has been made to give jurisdiction; We therefore overrule the motion to dismiss and proceed to the merits.

To reduce the case to the issues essential to be decided requires a statement of the source and history of the title whose registry was asked. We therefore at once state the salient and indisputable facts on that subject. On the twenty-fourth of March, 1885, by act before a notary public, Jose Mercado, declaring that he owned and possessed two parcels of irrigated land situated- in Sibul, pueblo of San Miguel de Mayumo, sold the same for cash to Juan Roura. A few weeks, after, on May third, 1885, the actirg petty governor bf the pueblo of San Miguel *388 de Mayumo issued a certificate, stating that Jose Mercado had declared to him that he possessed and owned three parcels of irrigated land in the pueblo, two of which are rice lands , and the other serves as a building lot and garden, where he has his house erected; that he had possessed the kind peaceably and uninterruptedly for more than thirty years, and asking that a certificate be issued as to the truth of these declarations. It was recited in the certificate that the “commune of leading citizens”. was convoked and that they unanimously declared that the statements of Mercado were in effect true. The certificate was signed, by the petty governor and the individual citizens who had been convoked to pass upon its statements. The purpose of obtaining the certificate does not appear, but it is inferable that it was intended to be used in a proceeding to be instituted by Mercado to obtain a recognition from the proper administrative authorities of his alleged title to the land. We say this, because four months after it appears among the files of a proceeding which, on September 10, 1885, the General Directorate of Civil Administration, under the authority vested in it by the regulations authorizing it to adjust and compose outstanding claims of title to the royal and unreclaimed lands, directed a deed to be issued to Mercado covering two tracts of land in the pueblo of San Miguel de Mayumo upon the payment of two and a fraction pesos. The sum thus to be paid, it was declared, represented ten per cent of the assessment of the land, and was exacted “for the expense of surveying' and measurement to be made- by a deputy surveyor of unreclaimed lands and .the fees for the title deed, according to the provisions of the decree of the General. Government of these islands of September 12, 1882, approved by royal order of July 25,1884.” On October 19 following, the Director General of Civil Administration' executed, on behalf of the. Directorate, a deed to Mercado of two *389 pieces of real estate situate in the pueblo of San Miguel de Mayumo, the description of the second of which pieces in a general sense conformed as to its exterior boundaries to the description of one of the pieces which had been previously sold by- Mercado to Roura, and also of one of the pieces described in the certificate of the petty governor. In making this deed the Director General declared that it was executed conformably to the decree ^f the General Directorate of September 7, 1885, by which decree the ownership of the land had been ‘‘awarded gratuitously to Mercado.” Shortly prior to the making of the deed by the Director General to Mercado, that is, on September 25, and shortly following, on November 9, deeds authorized by the General Directorate, to unreclaimed land in the pueblo of San Miguel, were made, the one in favor of Regino Pengson, and the other in favor of the parish priest of San Miguel. While the description of the land embraced, by these two deeds or the surveys cotemporaneously made concerning the same are not in the record, it is established that the land which they embraced was surveyed by the official surveyor who surveyed the Mercado land, and that it was not supposed by the Directorate that there was. any conflict between the three claims.

Shortly after the making of the Mercado deed it would •seem that a complaint was made to the Directorate of Civil Administration by Pengson, based upon an alleged conflict between the descriptions of the land embraced in the composition sale made to him and that described in the composition deed to Mercado. The precise character and extent of this conflict is not. disclosed, but it is inferable from the documentary evidence that it related .to the situation of a medicinal mineral spring, which was apparently claimed by both, Pengson under his com-, position and by Mercado under his. The matter was heard by the Directorate of Civil Administration, and *390 the result of the investigation oí that body was by it reported to the Governor General, with its recommendation for his action.

The- Governor' General, conformably to the recommendations made to him, issued an order annulling the composition proceedings and the deeds issued thereunder to, Pengson, Mercado and .the parish curate. It was expressly directed that all the proceedings in the several compositions be annulled, reserving the right of the parties to apply for a new composition. It was further directed, however, that before such new composition be allowed a competent surveyor be appointed, who should mark out the boundaries of the medicinal mineral spring, with the appurtenant land necessary to enable the public to enjoy its benefits, and that such spring and the land so marked out should be held as public property, reserving to private owners the- right to demand compensation for any private land taken in the execution of the order. In addition, the prder commanded the local authorities to demand, from Pengson, Mercado and the parish priest a return of the deeds issued to them which the order cancelled; that the order be transmitted to the proper provincial and local authorities to be executed and put of record, in conformity to law. The order was published in the official gazette at Manila, and was undoubtedly communicated through the proper administrative channels to ah the administrative officers who were concerned with its execution, including local officers of the pueblo of San Miguel.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Clark v. Paul Gray, Inc.
306 U.S. 583 (Supreme Court, 1939)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
218 U.S. 386, 31 S. Ct. 73, 54 L. Ed. 1080, 1910 U.S. LEXIS 2034, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roura-v-government-of-the-philippine-islands-scotus-1910.