FACTS:

The case involves an appeal challenging the decision of the Court of Appeals which denied a petition for review regarding the ownership and occupancy of a parcel of land. Esmundo B. Rivera, the petitioner, filed complaints for ejectment against Amy Robles Peregrino Mirambel and Merlina Mirambel, claiming that their houses were illegally constructed on his land. The dispute began on July 19, 1990, when the complaints were docketed as Civil Case Nos. 5740, 5741, and 5742 before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Valenzuela. On August 8, 1990, Jose Bayani A. Salcedo sought to intervene, asserting legal interest in the land based on his application for title under Miscellaneous Sales Application No. (11-6) 131, which was denied in January 1991. The respondents filed their answers, and following the submission of position papers, the Metropolitan Trial Court ruled in favor of the petitioner on March 18, 1993, ordering the respondents to remove their houses and vacate the land, among other directives.

Dissatisfied, the respondents appealed to the Regional Trial Court, which reversed and set aside the Metropolitan Trial Court’s decision on September 21, 1993, finding that the respondents' houses were on public land under the application of Salcedo and not on the private land of the petitioner. Esmundo B. Rivera then appealed to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition, concluding that Rivera failed to prove by preponderance of evidence that the disputed land was indeed his. The decision noted that the petitioner's evidence, including a survey conducted by a privately hired geodetic engineer, was insufficient and lacked proper authentication. Further, a court-ordered field survey or ocular inspection was never conducted to definitively establish the location of the respondents' houses. The Appeals Court ruled that when evidence is inconclusive, the party with the burden of proof fails, resulting in the dismissal of the complaint. Esmundo B. Rivera subsequently brought the case before the Supreme Court, contesting the findings of the Court of Appeals.

ISSUES:

1. Whether private respondents' houses are situated within petitioner's titled land.

2. Whether petitioner was able to prove his cause of action by a preponderance of evidence.

RULING:

1. Petitioner failed to establish that private respondents' houses are within his titled land due to insufficient and unconvincing evidence, including the unverified private survey.

2. The petition is unmeritorious as petitioner did not prove his cause of action by preponderance of evidence, and failed to undertake a field survey or an ocular inspection.

The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari.

PRINCIPLES:

• Burden of Proof and Preponderance of Evidence In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence.

• Equipoise Rule When the evidence of the parties is in equipoise or there is doubt as to where the preponderance lies, the party with the burden of proof fails.

• Review under Rule 45 Factual issues may generally not be raised in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, except under well-recognized exceptions.