UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ANDRADE.

Title could not be acquired to public lands that were to be used for public
purposes, highways, canals, etc, and those adjoining highways.
The mere cultivation did not give title '; without the adjudicat on, a cultivator acquired no legal title to the lands cultivated, nor could he convey
the ownership of these lands.
It appears that the defendant was not in legal possession at the time of the cession of the Canal Zone, and that he c )uld not have acquired legal adjudication of the land because this land was reserved for public use,
being adjacent to a canal.
SAME. TITLE BY OCCUPATION.
Can be obtained only of things that have no owner. As this land adjoined
a highway, it was owned by the national Government.
SAME. TITLE BY PRESCRIPTION. Title to public lands cannot be obtained by prescription, since prescription does not run against the national Government.
SAME. IMPROVEMENTS.
A possessor in good faith is entitled to the value of the improvements made by him; the value of them to be ascertained by the Joint Commission.
Appeal by defendant from the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of the Canal Zone; Hon. H. A. Gudger, Judge. The opinion of the lower court is as follows: "This was a civil action commenced by the United States of America, claiming to be the owner and entitled to the possession of a certain tract of land set forth and particularly described in the petition and in which it is alleged that the defendant, Antonio Andrade, is in the unlawful possession thereof. The defendant admits that he is in possession of the property named but, as his first cause, denies the right of the plaintiff to the ownership and, in the second cause, sets up title to the land by virtue of prescription. He alleges that eighteen or twenty years ago he "took up" the land in question, and that he has cultivated and occupied the same since that date, and that he is not only entitled to remain in possession, but is, in fact and in truth, the owner of the property. This plea on the part of the defendant refers to public land, and is meant to state that the identical land in question was, prior to its occupation by the defendant, "tierras baldias." If there is, or could be, a doubt as to whether or not this was intended to be an admission of that fact, the references made to the Code of Civil Procedure to sustain the defendant's contention would relieve the matter of any doubt as

1907.

65