E. Judicial Confirmation of Imperfect Title (CA 141, Sec. 48, as amended by RA 11573)

F. Confirmation of Imperfect Titles (R.A. No. 11573)

Requisites of Opposition

A person opposing an application for judicial confirmation must:

• have an interest in the land covered by the application;
• state the grounds for the opposition and the nature of the claimed interest;
• specify the relief sought; and
• sign and swear to the opposition, personally or through a duly authorized representative.

The opposition must be filed on or before the date of the initial hearing. If the opposition concerns only a portion of the land and that portion is not properly delimited, the court may require a division plan approved by the Director of Lands.

The applicant bears the burden of proving that the land has been declared alienable and disposable agricultural land of the public domain; the State need not first prove that the land is incapable of registration.

Even if the State files only a pro forma opposition, the applicant must prove both the required possession and the land’s alienable and disposable status through competent evidence. Open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession for the period required by law gives rise to an imperfect title that the State may confirm. Possession alone does not establish registrable title. The applicant must submit competent evidence of the land’s alienable and disposable status, notwithstanding the State’s access to relevant records.

A party asserting an affirmative allegation bears the burden of supporting it with evidence. The applicant bears the burden of proving that the land has been declared alienable and disposable; the State need not first prove that it is incapable of registration. (Republic of the Philippines v. Spouses Noval, G.R. No. 170316, September 18, 2017.)

Updated: Under CA 141, Sec. 48, as amended by RA 11573, the applicant must establish the requirements for judicial confirmation, including the land’s alienable and disposable status, through competent evidence. A pro forma State opposition does not dispense with this requirement. (Republic v. Manahan, G.R. No. 255266, April 21, 2025.)