You are on page 1of 2

G.R. No.

187023: November 17, 2010

EVANGELINE D. IMANI, Petitioner v. METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY,


Respondent

FACTS:

On August 28, 1981, Imani signed a Continuing Suretyship Agreement in favor of


Metrobank with 6 other co-sureties binding themselves to pay whatever indebtedness
C.P. Dazo Tannery, Inc. (CPDTI) incurs, but not exceeding 6 Million pesos. CPDTI
incurred an indebtedness around 164,000 pesos to which it defaulted in paying
Metrobank. This prompted Metrobank to file a collection suit against CPDTI and its
sureties. Metrobank won, and the sheriff levied a property owned by Imani and filed to
consolidate the title to its name. Imani opposed, stating that it is part of her conjugal
property. The RTC ruled in favor of Imani, reasoning that the loan proceeds never
redounded to the benefit of the family of Imani. RTC annulled the sale and levy.
Metrobank appealed, and the CA reversed the decision of the RTC.

Thus, petitioner appeals to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the CA erred in reversing the decision of the RTC.

2. Whether the property was subject to execution, it being a road right of way under PD
1529.

HELD:

No.

Article 160 of the Civil Code provides that all property of the marriage is presumed to be
conjugal. However, for this presumption to apply, the party who invokes it must first
prove that the property was acquired during the marriage. Proof of acquisition during the
coverture is a condition sine qua non to the operation of the presumption in favor of the
conjugal partnership. Thus, the time when the property was acquired is material.

As aptly ruled by the CA, the fact that the land was registered in the name of Evangelina
Dazo-Imani married to Sina Imaniis no proof that the property was acquired during the
spouses coverture. Acquisition of title and registration thereof are two different acts. It is
well settled that registration does not confer title but merely confirms one already
existing. Indubitably, petitioner utterly failed to substantiate her claim that the property
belongs to the conjugal partnership. Thus, it cannot be rightfully said that the CA
reversed the RTC ruling without valid basis

Remedial Law: Appeals

The argument regarding the road right of way must be rejected because it was raised
for the first time in this petition .In the trial court and the CA, petitioners arguments
zeroed in on the alleged conjugal nature of the property. It is well settled that issues
raised for the first time on appeal and not raised in the proceedings in the lower court
are barred by estoppel. Points of law, theories, issues, and arguments not brought to
the attention of the trial court ought not to be considered by a reviewing court, as these
cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. To consider the alleged facts and
arguments raised belatedly would amount to trampling on the basic principles of fair
play, justice, and due process.