453

Argument for Defendant in Error.
Government Ptg. Office, February 1, 1908; 3 Philippine, 543; 6

Philippine, 606; Strother v. Lucas (1838), 12 Peters, 436;,Philip-
pine Code Civ. Pro., § 41; Circular of August 10, publioned in

the Glaceia de Manila, 'August 11, 1881; Royal Decree of S -
tember 24, 1884, Art. 11; Royal Decree of February 13, 1894,
Art. 4, § 21.
The Solicitor General, with whom Mr. Paul Charlton was on
the brief, for defendant in error:
The court is without jurisdiction o iwrit of error. It can only
take jurisdiction on appeal. § 10, act of July 1, 1902; 32-Stat.

691. This court can only review actions at law pending in Cir-
cuit Courts by writ'of error and proceedings in equity only by

appeal. The proceedings for the adjudication and registration
of titles to lands in the Philippine Islands are in their nature

actions in equity rather than actions at law. Act No. 496, Phil-
ippine Commission, §§ 2, 14, 16, 21, 35-38, 40. See Holland v.

Challen, 110 U. S. 15; Clark v. Smith, 13 Pet. 195; Dower v.
Richards, 151 U. S. 658; Chase v. United States, 155 U. S. 480.
Plaintiff in error possessed no title in the lands at the date of
the change of sovereignty from Spain to the United States.
During the period of Spanish sovereignty the tribe of Igorots
had not been segregated'from the body of the Philippine people
as to the operation of the general law; no reservation of land

was set aside for them, nor did the Spanish Government inter-
fere in their internal tribal affairs. The status of the Igorot

in his relation to the Spanish laws is not analogous to that of
the American Indian in relation to the laws of the United States,

and the cases affecting the tribal rights of Indians have no ap-
plication to any rights of plaintiff in error, jure gentium or other-
wise.

Plaintiff's claim of title advanced in the Philippine courts,
based mainly upon "prescription" as valid against the Crown
of Spain and therefore surviving the hange of sovereignty and

requiring to be recognized under the Treaty of Paris, is un-
tenable under Spanish law. While thai law made ample pro-