EVANGELINE D.
IMANI, petitioner - W/N the CA erred in reversing the
v decision of the RTC that the property
METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST
COMPANY, respondent
RULING:
- The Court affirms CA ruling.
FACTS:
- Imani signed a Continuing
Suretyship Agreement in favour 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 php.
- C.P. Dazo Tannery, Inc. incurred an
indebtedness around 164,000 php to
which it defaulted in paying
Metrobank.
- CPDTI defaulted in the payment of
its loans.
- Metrobank made several demands
for payment upon CPDTI, but to no
avail.
- This prompted Metrobank to file a
collection suit against CPDTI and its
sureties, including herein petitioner.
- RTC ruled in favor of Metrobank,
and the sheriff levied a property
owned by Imani and filed to
consolidate the title to its name.
- Imani appealed that the property is
part of her conjugal property.
- The RTC ruled in favor of her, ruling
that the loan proceeds never
contributed to the benefit of the
family of Imani.
- Metrobank appealed and the CA
reversed the decision.
- Hence, this petition.
ISSUES:
is conjugal in nature.
- 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 ofEvangelina 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.
- WHEREFORE, the petition is
DENIED.