DIRECTOR OF LANDS VS INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT. Issue? 1.

whether the presentation of the tracing cloth plan is necessary; and 2. whether the land known as "Tambac Island" can be subject to registration. Ruling? Firstly, Supreme Court in citing the case, Director of Lands versus the Honorable Intermediate Appellate Court and Lino Anit, Supreme Court ruled that the submission of the tracing cloth plan is a mandatory requirement for registration. Supreme Court reiterated its ruling in Director of Lands v. Reyes, that failure to submit in evidence the original tracing cloth plan is fatal it being a statutory requirement of mandatory character. It is of no import that petitioner failed to object to the presentation of the certified copy of the said plan. What was required is the original tracing cloth plan of the land applied for and objection to such requirement cannot be waived either expressly or impliedly. This case was no different from the case of Director of Lands v. Reyes, wherein the Supreme Court said that if the original tracing cloth plan was indeed with the Land Registration Commission, there is no reason why the applicant cannot easily retrieve the same and submit it in evidence, it being an essential requirement for registration. Secondly, Supreme Court were inclined to agree with petitioners that the amendment of the application from the name of Pacific Farms Incorporated, as applicant, to the name of J. Antonio Araneta, was a mere attempt to evade disqualification. Our Constitution, whether the 1973 or 1987, prohibits private corporations or associations from holding alienable lands of the public domain except by lease. Apparently realizing such prohibition, respondent amended its application to conform with the mandates of the law.