G.R. No. 218637 . February 01, 2023
MARISSA B. BACANI, PETITIONER, VS. ROSITA D. MADIO, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Respondent Rosita D. Madio, as plaintiff, filed an action for recovery of ownership, possession, and damages against petitioner Marissa B. Bacani before the RTC of Baguio City. The subject was a portion of a two-storey building occupied by petitioner. Rosita claimed ownership of the entire building based on tax declarations in the name of her late husband, Miguel Madio, and her status as an heir and co-owner. She alleged that she and Miguel acquired the property in 1965, renovated it, and that petitioner’s possession was without permission after Andrew Bacani (petitioner’s predecessor, who had leased the first storey) vacated around 2002.
Petitioner Marissa Bacani claimed ownership of portions of the lot and building. She relied on: (1) a Deed of Sale of a Portion of Unregistered Parcel of Land executed by Miguel Madio to Andrew Bacani (covering 125 sq. m.); (2) a Deed of Sale of a Portion of Unregistered Land executed by Miguel Madio to Emilio Depollo (covering 18.58 sq. m.); and (3) subsequent Deeds of Waiver of Rights executed by Andrew Bacani and Emilio Depollo in her favor. She contended the transaction with Andrew Bacani was a sale, not a loan, and that Rosita’s possession was by mere tolerance.
The RTC ruled that Marissa was a pro indiviso co-owner of the lot to the extent of 18.58 sq. m. based on the sale to Emilio Depollo. Regarding the 125 sq. m. portion subject of the agreement between Miguel and Andrew, the RTC gave Rosita 30 days to choose between: (a) conveying the lot to Marissa upon readiness of title, or (b) treating the amounts paid as a loan payable to Marissa with interest. The RTC also allowed Marissa to possess a specific portion of the building until Rosita exercised her option.
The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC. The CA found that Rosita proved ownership of the building through testimonial evidence of possession, petitioner’s admission that Rosita occupied the second floor, and real property tax receipts in Miguel’s name. The CA held that the agreement between Miguel and Andrew (Exhibit “18”/”G”) was a conditional contract to sell, not a consummated sale, as it was contingent upon the issuance of a certificate of title in Miguel’s name, which never occurred. Thus, no ownership of the land was transferred to Andrew or his successor, Marissa. The CA also found the Deed of Sale to Emilio Depollo invalid for lack of a valid object, as Miguel had no title to the land. The CA declared Rosita the rightful owner of the building, ordered Marissa to vacate and pay rentals, and awarded attorney’s fees to Rosita.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC and declaring respondent Rosita Madio as the rightful owner of the subject building, ordering petitioner Marissa Bacani to vacate and pay rentals, and awarding attorney’s fees.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The Supreme Court held that the CA correctly ruled that the agreement between Miguel Madio and Andrew Bacani (Exhibit “18”/”G”) was a conditional contract to sell, not a consummated sale of land. The conditions—that the balance be paid upon issuance of a certificate of title in Miguel’s name and the immediate conveyance of the portion to Andrew, and that if the lot would not be conveyed, the amount paid would be considered a loan—were not fulfilled as no title was issued to Miguel. Therefore, no ownership of the land was transferred to Andrew Bacani or his successor, Marissa Bacani.
Regarding the Deed of Sale to Emilio Depollo (covering 18.58 sq. m.), the Court affirmed the CA’s finding that it was invalid. Under Article 1459 of the Civil Code, the vendor must have a right to transfer the ownership of the thing sold at the time it is delivered. Since Miguel Madio had no certificate of title and his ownership of the land was not established, he could not validly sell a portion of it. Thus, Emilio Depollo acquired no rights that could be waived to Marissa.
The Court upheld the CA’s finding that Rosita proved her ownership of the building through preponderant evidence: testimonies of actual, open, continuous possession; Marissa’s admission regarding Rosita’s occupancy of the second floor; and real property tax payments under Miguel’s name, which are good indicia of possession in the concept of an owner.
Consequently, Marissa’s possession of the building’s first storey was unlawful. The Court affirmed the order for her to vacate and pay reasonable rental compensation of Php 5,000.00 per month from the filing of the complaint until vacation. The award of attorney’s fees was also affirmed as Rosita was compelled to litigate to protect her rights.