This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, absolving the defendant from the  complaint, with costs against  the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, Jose Vegas, is a nephew of the defendant, Leonarda Vegas, whose brother, Pedro Vegas, was Jose's father.   Pedro and  Leonarda were the only children of the spouses Januario Vegas and Longina Zulueta.   Januario died  intestate  in the year 1896 and was survived by his widow, Longina Zulueta,  and his children, Pedro  and Leonarda Vegas.  Pedro died, also  intestate, in  the  year 1904, leaving his widow, Eulalia Llenos, and his only child, Jose Vegas.

It appears that Longina Zulueta died on March 23, 1910, leaving a will which was probated on June 4 of the same year over the opposition of Eulalia Llenos, widow of Pedro Vegas, wherein she bequeathed personal property and devised parcel C and one-half of parcel A, all described in the complaint, to the defendant Leonarda Vegas and the other half of parcel A to the plaintiff  Jose Vegas.

The  plaintiff in this  action contends that the personal property and  the  three parcels of land mentioned in the complaint were the separate  property of his grandfather, Januario  Vegas,  and that none  of  them belonged to his grandmother,  Longina Zulueta, and that he, in representation  of his deceased father, Pedro Vegas, is  entitled to one-half of all the property.  He further contends that, if parcels A and C belonged to his grandmother, Longina Zulueta, he was unlawfully deprived of his shares.

The  plaintiff now prays for a judgment:  (a) Declaring the plaintiff to be the owner of one-half of parcel A, parcel B, parcel C and of the improvements thereon, and one-half of the  personal  property;  (b)  ordering  the defendant to return  to the plaintiff one-half of  parcel A, parcel B, parcel C, and  one-half  of the personal property or their values; (c)  condemning  the  defendant and the  estate of Fabio Beltran to pay to  the plaintiff P16,200 as damages and to pay costs.

The  defendant,  in defense, alleges that she and  her deceased  husband,  Fabio Beltran, were the only and absolute owners of the property  described in the complaint; that parcel  A was bought by the deceased Fabio Beltran from the estate of Longina Zulueta by virtue of a sale made by the executor of her will and approved by the  court; that parcel  B was  bought by her  from one Restituta Imperial; and that parcel C was her inheritance from Longina Zulueta in accordance with the will left by the latter and probated by  the court, which parcel she received from the executor of the said will by order of court.

Upon trial the court below found that plaintiff's claim that the three parcels of land in question were the separate property of Januario Vegas is  not sustained by any  preponderance of the evidence; on the contrary the court finds that two of the parcels of land in question parcel A in Cogon and parcel C in the poblacion were the paraphernal property of Longina  Zulueta, and that the other parcel parcel B in Tapon was originally the property of Restituta Imperial, who  sold it to Leonarda, and  consequently the court rendered  judgment as stated above.  From this judgment  the  plaintiff  appealed  to this court  and made the following assignments of error:

1. The trial court  erred in holding that the claim of the plaintiff that the three parcels of land in question were the separate property of Januario Vegas is not sustained by any preponderance of the evidence.
   
2. The  trial court  erred  in admitting  Exhibit  1 of the defendant and in holding that the sale of  parcel C to the defendant and the compromise of case No. 1068 are legal and valid, and  not prejudicial to the plaintiff.
   
3. The trial court erred in holding legal and valid the sale of parcel A by the executor to Fabio Beltran without the consent of  the  heirs.
   
4. The  trial court erred  in  holding that parcel B belonged to Restituta Imperial.
   
5. The trial court erred in admitting Exhibit 2 of the defendant over the objection of the plaintiff and in giving it weight  and  credit.
   
6. The  trial court erred  in  not awarding  damages to the plaintiff.
   
7. The trial court  erred in rendering judgment in favor of the defendant." We have, gone over the record of this case carefully and find that the evidence relied  upon by the plaintiff consists of almost oral  testimonies of his  witnesses, while that of the defendant  consists  of both  oral and documentary evidence.  Civil cases such as the  one at bar should be proved beyond preponderance of evidence, and the plaintiff failed to do so in this case.   With the evidence before us, we cannot help but agree to the findings of the court below.  The assignments of error made  by the plaintiff are  without merit.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with the costs against the appellant.   So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Romualdez, Villa-Real, and Imperial, JJ., concur.