SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 249378. December 11, 2019.]
BANCO DE ORO UNIVERSAL BANK, INC. [NOW BDO UNIBANK, INC.], petitioner, vs.BAYBAYAN FARMS, INC., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated11 December 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 249378 (Banco De Oro Universal Bank, Inc. [now BDO Unibank, Inc.] v. Baybayan Farms, Inc.)
The petitioner Banco De Oro Universal Bank, Inc., now BDO Unibank, Inc.'s (petitioner), motion for an extension of thirty (30) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period.
The petitioner's second motion for extension of fifteen (15) days from November 8, 2019 within which to file a petition for review on certiorari is DENIED, and the petitioner's MANIFESTATION, stating that, the Court of Appeals (CA) was inadvertently not furnished with a copy of the motion for extension to file petition which was filed on October 7, 2017, is NOTED.
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the May 23, 2019 Decision 2 and the September 11, 2019 Resolution 3 of the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 110058 for failure of petitioner to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in ruling that respondent Baybayan Farms, Inc. (respondent) was entitled to lawful possession of the owner's duplicate copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-23021 4 (subject title).
As correctly ruled by the CA, respondent had prima facie established its lawful right to possess the subject title, having shown that it was the registered owner thereof. 5 Thus, it became incumbent upon petitioner to present sufficient evidence proving its right to retain possession of the subject title, which it failed to do. 6 In this regard, case law provides that, in civil cases, once a plaintiff makes out a prima facie case, the burden of evidence shifts to the defendant to present controverting evidence, failing in which, a verdict must be given in plaintiff's favor. 7 Moreover, it bears stressing that factual findings of the trial courts, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive on this Court, and will generally not be reviewed on appeal, absent any of the recognized exceptions, 8 as in this case.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 29-38.
2.Id. at 46-54. Penned by Associate Justice Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig with Associate Justices Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, concurring.
3.Id. at 56-57.
4. Not attached to the rollo.
5. See rollo, pp. 51-52.
6. See id. at 53.
7. See Stronghold Insurance Co., Inc. v. Interpacific Container Services, 762 Phil. 483, 491 (2015).
8. See Insular Investment and Trust Corporation v. Capital One Equities Corporation, 686 Phil. 819, 830-831 (2012).