On the 29th of July, 1908, Severo Aguillon, the petitioner, presented a petition  in the Court of Land Registration for the  registration of  certain  parcels of land described in the said petition.

On the 14th of  November, 1908, the Attorney-General, representing the Insular Government, opposed the registration of the parcels of land in question, upon the theory that the said land belonged to the Government.

At the time of  the trial  of the cause  the Director  of Lands amended his  opposition to the registration of the parcels of land in question, alleging that the plans presented by the petitioner  had not  been prepared in conformity with the provisions of sections 4 and 5 of Act No. 1875 of the Philippine Legislature.

Notwithstanding the opposition of the Director of Lands, the  Court of  Land Registration ordered the registration of the parcels  of  land in question.  From that  decision the Director of Lands appealed and assigned as  error  in this court that the lower court committed an error in admitting the plans Exhibits A and B, upon the ground that they had not been prepared in conformity with the provisions of said Act No. 1875,  The plans marked "Exhibits A and B" were made long before the presentation of the said petition for registration and were made by  private surveyors who had not  been authorized by the Director of Lands or  the Governor-General to make surveys for the registration of property in  the  Land Court.  Exhibit A was prepared and finished on the 10th of November, 1906, Exhibit B was prepared and finished upon the same day.

Said  Act No. 1875 took effect  upon the  1st of  July, 1908.  The petition in the present case was presented upon the 29th of July, 1908.   Said Act was, therefore, in effect at the time of the presentation of the petition.  Section 4 of said Act is as follows:

"The surveyor who is employed to prepare surveys, maps, and plats  of  property shall give  due notice in advance to the adjoining owners, whose addresses are  known, of the date and hour when they shall present themselves on the property for the purpose of making such  objections to the boundaries of the property to be surveyed as they consider necessary  for the protection of their rights.  The surveyor shall report all objections made to him by adjoining property owners  at the time of  the  survey and demarcation, giving a proper description of the boundaries claimed by the protestant or protestants.

"The surveyor shall define the boundaries of the lands submitted for registration by means of temporary monuments placed on the  land  and he shall designate  on the map or plat  the boundaries  as  claimed by the applicant for registration and the boundaries as claimed by protesting adjoining  property owners.  In case the court shall find that the boundary line claimed by the protestant or protestants is incorrect and that that designated by the applicant is correct, the cost of making any extra survey over that required by the applicant shall be assessed against the protestant or protestants.  Should  the boundary line designated by the  protestant or protestants prove to be correct and that of the applicant incorrect the court shall assess the cost of making the survey to the applicant. The usual process of the court shall be available for collecting such costs.   The work of survey and demarcation  shall not be suspended because of the presentation of any complaint or objection."

Section 5 of said Act is as follows:

"It  shall be the  duty of private  surveyors who make surveys, maps, or plats  of property for which registration of title is requested to comply with the requirements of the preceding section and to promptly send their reports, surveys,  maps, and plats  of  such property  to  the Bureau of Lands for verification.   Private surveyors  shall not be authorized to make surveys for the Court of Land Registration unless they shall have passed either  a civil service examination or an examination by the Bureau of Lands for the purpose of determining their qualifications."

The appellee contends that, inasmuch  as his plans  had been prepared  long  before the enactment of the  said  Act No. 1875, the same was  not applicable, for the reason that to make the law applicable to the present case would be giving to said law a retroactive  effect, and  cites  article 3 of the Civil Code and rules  1 and 2 De  las Disposiciones Transitorias of the  Civil Code,  as well  as  volume 12 of Manresa, page 922, in support of his contention.

In our opinion  the law does not have a retroactive effect. It only applied to cases which were begun in the  Court of Land Registration after  its  enactment.  The law had been in force nearly a month  prior to  the commencement of the present action.   And moreover the law only related to the procedure - to  the character  of  the  evidence  which  the petitioner must present  in support of his claim.   It  is a doctrine well established that the procedure of the court may be changed at any time and become  effective at once, so long as it does not affect or change vested rights.

We are of the opinion that the judgment of the lower court  should be  reversed and stand  reversed until  the plaintiff or petitioner presents plans in  accordance with the provisions  of Act No.  1875, and the case is hereby ordered to be returned to the lower court  with direction that the petitioner present his plans  in accordance with said Act. If, however, when  the plans shall have been presented,  the lower court finds  that the  same conform to the plans already presented, then the judgment heretofore rendered may be affirmed without further procedure.  If, however, the  new plans when presented do not conform to the plans heretofore presented and shall affect the  rights of  any persons who have  not heretofore been heard, then notice shall be given them and an opportunity to present whatever opposition they  may  have to the registration of the land included in the new plans.   It is so ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Moreland, and Trent, JJ., concur.