GR 115625; (January 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 115625 January 23, 1998
ESMUNDO B. RIVERA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, AMY ROBLES, PEREGRINO MIRAMBEL and MERLINA MIRAMBEL, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Esmundo B. Rivera filed three complaints for ejectment against private respondents Amy Robles, Peregrino Mirambel, and Merlina Mirambel before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Valenzuela. Rivera alleged that the respondents’ houses were illegally constructed on his titled land. The private respondents, in their defense, claimed they were occupying a public land applied for by Jose Bayani Salcedo under a Miscellaneous Sales Application and were his caretakers since 1969. The MeTC ruled in favor of Rivera, ordering the respondents to vacate and pay compensation and attorney’s fees. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MeTC decision, finding that the evidence showed the respondents were not squatters on Rivera’s private land but were caretakers on the applied public land, and dismissed the complaints. Rivera then appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed the petition for review. The CA found that both the MeTC and RTC decisions lacked substantial evidence to definitively rule whether the respondents’ houses were on Rivera’s private land or on public land, noting the absence of a court-directed field survey or ocular inspection. The CA emphasized that Rivera, as plaintiff, failed to establish his cause of action by a preponderance of evidence.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner proved his cause of action by a preponderance of evidence, specifically that the private respondents’ houses are located inside his titled land.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and affirmed the dismissal. The Court held that in civil cases, the party with the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. In this ejectment case, petitioner Rivera had the burden to prove that the respondents’ houses were within his titled property. The Court found that the aggregate evidence was insufficient to determine this with certainty. Rivera relied on a private survey by his geodetic engineer, but its reliability was questionable as it was not authenticated by the Bureau of Lands. Conversely, the respondents’ claim of occupying public land was also unconvincing against Rivera’s title. The Court noted the absence of a court-ordered field survey or an ocular inspection, which precluded a definitive resolution. Where the evidence is in equipoise or there is doubt as to where the preponderance lies, the party with the burden of proof fails. Since neither party could make out a case, the courts could only dismiss the complaints. Furthermore, the petition essentially raised a factual issue inappropriate for review under Rule 45, with no showing it fell under any recognized exception.