G.R. No. L-5448 - Aguillon vs. Director of Lands

On July 29, 1908, Severo Aguillon, the petitioner, filed a petition in the Court of Land Registration seeking to register certain parcels of land, which were then described in his petition.

Prior to the filing, on November 10, 1906, two plans—referred to as Exhibits A and B—had already been prepared and completed by private surveyors without prior authorization from the Director of Lands or the Governor-General.

On November 14, 1908, the Attorney-General, representing the Insular Government, opposed the registration of the land, arguing that the parcels belonged to the Government.

At the time of trial, the Director of Lands amended his opposition from a claim of government ownership to alleging procedural noncompliance, contending that the plans (Exhibits A and B) were not prepared in conformity with sections 4 and 5 of Act No. 1875 of the Philippine Legislature.

Act No. 1875 took effect on July 1, 1908, imposing specific requirements on the preparation of surveys, maps, and plats of property for registration:

Section 4 mandated that surveyors must give notice to adjoining owners, record their objections, and clearly demarcate both the applicant’s and the protestants’ claimed boundaries.

Section 5 required that private surveyors comply with the aforementioned procedures and obtain certification of qualifications either through a civil service examination or an examination by the Bureau of Lands.

The petition was presented after the effectivity of Act No. 1875, and thus its requirements were applicable to the case.

The petitioner contended for the registration of the parcels based on the petition and the plans already submitted.

The appellee (Director of Lands) objected on the grounds that the plans did not comply with Act No. 1875, emphasizing:

The use of these plans would improperly give the law retroactive effect, contrary to established principles under article 3 of the Civil Code, certain transitional provisions, and precedents cited from legal treatises.

Despite the opposition raised by the Director of Lands regarding noncompliance with Act No. 1875, the Court of Land Registration ordered the registration of the parcels.

The Director of Lands appealed the decision, arguing that admitting the plans as evidence was erroneous because they were not prepared in conformity with the new statutory requirements.

Whether the plans (Exhibits A and B), prepared before the enactment of Act No. 1875, could be admitted as evidence in the registration proceedings given the procedural requirements established by the Act.
Whether applying Act No. 1875 to the current petition would constitute a retroactive application of the law, thereby violating doctrines that prohibit retroactivity in procedural matters.
Whether the procedure outlined in Act No. 1875, affecting the admissibility and presentation of surveys, should be strictly adhered to in the registration process in light of the timing of the creation of the plans and the filing of the petition.