MEMORY OF THE WORLD REGISTER

NOMINATION FORM

PART A – ESSENTIAL INFORMATION

1.SUMMARY

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.

2.DETAILS OF THE NOMINATOR

2.1 Name (Person or organization):

National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA)

2.2 Relationship to the documentary heritage nominated:

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)

National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA)

633 General Luna St., Intramuros, Metro-Manila, Philippines
Tel. : (632) 527-2204
Fax : (632) 527-2194
Email : info@ncca.gov.ph

1
3. IDENTTY AND DESCRIPTION OF THE DOCUMENTARY HERITAGE:

3.1 Name and identification details of the item being nominated

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.

3.2 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)

2
 T.M. Kalaw St., Metro-Manila, Philippines
b) National Commission on Indigenous Peoples
D&E Bldg, Cr. Roces and Quezon Ave., Quezon city, Philippines
b) National Museum, P.Burgos, St., Ermita, Metro-Manila, Philippines.

4. JUSTIFICATION FOR INCLUSION/ASSESSMENT AGAINST CRITERIA

4.1 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.

4.2 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).

4.3 Criteria:

(a) 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.
(b) 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.
(c) 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.

4.4 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

3
 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.

5. LEGAL INFORMATION

5.1 Owner of the documentary heritage – The Supreme Court of the United
States
5.2 Custodian of the documentary heritage – The Supreme Court of the United
States
5.3 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

8. ASSESSMENT OF RISK

8.1 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.

9. ASSSESSMENT OF PRESERVATION

9.1 (See 8.1 above)

4
PART C – LODGEMENT

This nomination is lodged by:

Evelyn B. Pantig
Chairman
National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA)

(Signature) __________________________________________

(Date) __________________________________________