456

OCTOBER TERM, 1908.
Opinion of the Court. 212 U. S.
Paris, April 11, 1899, as far back as the findings go, the plaintiff
and his ancestors had held the land as owners. His grandfather
had lived upon it, and had maintained fences sufficient for the
holding of cattle, according to the custom of the country, some
of the fences, it seems, having been of much earlier date. His
father nad cultivated parts and had used parts for pasturing
cattle, and he had used it for pasture in his turn. They all had
been' recognized as owners by the Igorots, and he had inherited
or received the land from his father in accordance with Igorot
custom. No document of title, however, had issued from the
Spanish Crown, and although in 1893-1894, and again in 1896-
1897, he made application for one under the royal decrees then

in force, nothing seems to have come of it, unless, perhaps, in-
formation that lands in Benguet could not be conceded until

those to be occupied for a sanatorium, etc., had been designated,

a purpose that has been carried out by the Philippine Govern-
ment and the United States. In 1901 the plaintiff filed a peti-
tion, alleging ownership, under the mortgage law, and the lands

were registered to him, that process, however, establishing
only a possessory title, it is said: • Before we deal with the merits we must dispose of a technical
point. The Government has spent some energy in maintaining
that this case should have been brought up by appeal and not
by writ of error. We are of opinion, however, that the mode
adopted was right. The proceeding for registration is likened
to bills in equity to quiet title, but it is different in principle.
It is a proceeding in rem under a statute of the type of the Tor-

-ens Act, such as was discussed in Tyler v. Court of Registra-
tion, 175 Massachusetts, 71. It is nearer to law than to equity,

and is an assertion of legal title; but we think it unnecessary
to put it into either pigeon hole. A writ of error is the general
method of bringing cases to this court, an appeal the exception,

confined to equity in the main. There is no reason for not ap-
plying the general rule to this case. Ormsby v. Webb, 134 U. S.

47, 65; Campbell v. Porter,• 162 U. S. 478; Metropolitan R. R.
Co. v. Distric of Columbia, 195 U. S. 322.