G.R. No. 218637 - Bacani vs. Madio

Rosita D. Madio (respondent) filed an action on April 8, 2010 before the RTC of Baguio City, Branch 6 (Civil Case No. 7141-R), to recover ownership, possession, and damages over a portion of the building occupied by Marissa B. Bacani (petitioner).
Rosita claimed ownership of the building based on tax declarations in her late husband Miguel Madio's name and her status as an heir/co-owner. She sought Marissa’s eviction.
Marissa asserted that her predecessors-in-interest, Andrew Bacani and Emilio Depollo, bought portions of the lot where the building stands through various Deeds of Sale executed by Miguel, and that Andrew and Emilio later waived their rights in favor of her via Deeds of Waiver.

Rosita and her late husband claimed ownership and possession of a two-storey building located at Magsaysay Avenue, Baguio City, covered under Tax Declaration No. 01-017015-007267 in Miguel’s name, which they began owning since 1965.
The property was originally a one-storey house owned by Miguel's cousin, later conveyed to Spouses Madio, who renovated it into a two-storey building.
The heirs of Miguel executed an Extra Judicial Settlement with Waiver of Shares in 2009 adjudicating ownership of the building to Rosita.
During Miguel’s lifetime, Andrew leased the first storey for his auto air-conditioning shop, while the second floor was occupied by Rosita’s family.
A conditional Deed of Sale dated December 2, 1993, between Miguel and Andrew provided that Andrew would buy a 125 sq. m. portion of land and occupy certain parts of the building pending title issuance; if title was not issued, payments would be considered a loan payable with interest.
Titles in Miguel’s name were never issued, thus the agreements did not consummate into full ownership.
Marissa took over operation of Andrew's business and possession of the first storey around 2002 without Miguel's consent. Rosita demanded Marissa to vacate and pay rentals, but Marissa refused.
Marissa relied on the Deeds of Sale and Deeds of Waiver from Andrew and Emilio, claiming rights over their purchased portions and the building, insisting the transactions constituted actual sales, not loans.

The case went through mediation and trial; Marissa failed to appear in mediation.
RTC Decision (March 21, 2012): Declared Marissa a pro indiviso co-owner of 18.58 sq. m. of land including improvements and entitled to partition; gave Rosita 30 days to choose between conveying the 125 sq. m. lot or treating payments as a loan with interest; allowed Marissa to possess a specified portion of the building but ordered her to vacate other parts. Both parties’ claims for damages were denied.
Rosita’s motion for reconsideration was denied by RTC (May 2, 2012).
Rosita appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
CA Decision (September 29, 2014) reversed the RTC, ruling that Rosita proved ownership and possession of the entire building; ordered Marissa to vacate the first storey, pay occupancy fees, and attorney’s fees.
Marissa’s motion for reconsideration was denied by CA (May 4, 2015).
Marissa filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court seeking to annul the CA decision and reinstate the RTC ruling.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that Rosita proved ownership and thus exclusive possession of the subject building.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in awarding attorney’s fees in favor of Rosita.