The Carino v. The Insular Government of the Philippine Islands case in 1908 revolved around a dispute over land ownership rights in the Philippines, which was then under U.S. control following the Spanish-American War. Mateo Carino, an indigenous Ibaloi man from Benguet province claimed that his family had owned and occupied their ancestral lands for generations prior to Spanish colonization and thus should be recognized as its rightful owners despite not having formal title deeds or documentation according to Western legal norms. The U.S., however, argued that all "public" lands (including those traditionally held by indigenous peoples) were automatically transferred to them after they acquired the Philippines from Spain. In a landmark decision, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., writing for majority of Supreme Court justices ruled in favor of Carino stating that long-standing possession constituted sufficient proof of ownership even without formal title deeds - thereby recognizing native customary law within American jurisprudence.

In the dissenting opinion for Carino v. The Insular Government of the Philippine Islands, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. argued that indigenous peoples' rights to their ancestral lands should not be recognized unless they had been formally granted by a colonial government. He believed that while native customs and traditions could inform legal decisions, they did not constitute binding law in themselves. Therefore, he contended that Carino's claim to his ancestral land was invalid because it had never been officially recognized or registered under Spanish rule prior to American acquisition of the Philippines following the Spanish-American War. This view reflected Holmes' broader belief in legal formalism - an approach which prioritizes established laws and procedures over considerations such as historical context or social justice.