450

OCTOBER TERM, 1908.
Argument for Plaintiff in Error. 212 U. S.
The acquisition of the Philippines was not for the purpose of acquiring
the lands occupied by the inhabitants, and under the Organic Act of
July 1, 19062, c. 1369, 32 Stat. 691i providing that property rights are
to be administered for the benefit of the inhabitants, one who actually
owned land, for many years cannot be deprived of it for failure to
comply with certain ceremonies prescribed either by the acts of the
Philippine Commission or by Spahish law.
The Organic Act of the Philippines made a bill of rights embodying
safeguards of -the ConstitUtioni , and, like the Constitution, extends
those safeguards to all.
Every presumption of ownership is in favor of one actually occupying
land for many years, and against the Government which seeks to

deprive him of it, for failure to comply with provisions of a subse-
quently enacted registration act.

-Title by prescription against the crown existed under Spanish law in
force in the Philippine Islands prior to their acquisition by the Uni-
.ted States, and one occupying land in the Province of Benguet for
more than fifty years before the Treaty of Paris is entitled to the
continued possession thereof.
7 Philippine Rep. 132, reversed.
The facts are stated in the. opinion.
Mr. Frederic R. C(oudert and Mr. Howard Thayer Kingsbury,
with'whom Mr. D. R. Williams and Mr. Charles C. Cohn were
on the brief, for plaintiff in error:

-The Land Registration Court had jurisdiction of the subject-
matter under act No. 496, §§ 2, 19; and its decision was legal,

just and in conformity with the protection of private property
provision of the Treaty of Paris. Public Land Act, No. 926.
This court has jurisdiction and writ of error is the proper
method.
The proceeding is one in rem and not in personam as it deals
with titles to real estate. See § 705, Rev. Stat.; 27 Stat. 434;
31Stat.1189, 1227; Ormsby v. Webb, 134U. S. 47; Met. Railroad
Co. y. Dist. of Columbia, 195 U. S. 322; Steinmetz v. Allen, 192
U. S. 543;.Lowry v. Allen, 203 U. S. 476; Smith v. Whitney, 116
U. S. 167; Massie v. Watts, 6 Cranch, 148, 158; Boston Mining
Co. v. Montana Ore Co., 188 U. S. 632, 641; Philippine Code
Civ, Pro.,.Act 190, Phil. Com., § 498.