Summary

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Tiglao v. Insular Government of Philippine Islands…

Of course, this does not mean that the titulo must have been effective in the particular case, for then prescription would be unnecessary. We assume, for instance, that if a private person in possession of Crown lands, seeming to be the owner, executed a formally valid conveyance under which his grantee held, supposing his title good, possession for ten years might create an indisputable right.
Source: Wikisource

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Tiglao v. Insular Government of Philippine Islands…

The land was public land. The questions brought here were whether the original grant was valid, or, if not, whether the possession that followed it without interruption for ten years and more conferred title by prescription under the royal decree of June 25, 1880. This decree states the rule of prescription in the usual terms of the civil law. It confers ownership on those who shall establish that they have possessed the lands in question for the requisite time under just title and in good faith.
Source: Wikisource

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Tiglao v. Insular Government of Philippine Islands…

But even if it be assumed, as it is by the argument for the plaintiff in error, that either that or later legislation to similar effect instituted a working system in the Philippines,-a large assumption,-it is admitted that the conditions of the supposed gratuity were not fulfilled. Our attention has not been called to any law giving authority to the ill-defined body that attempted to make the grant.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature