Imani v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company
GR No. 187023
November 17, 2010
Ponente: Justice Nachura
FACTS:
Evangeline D. Imani (petitioner) signed a Continuity Suretyship Agreement in favor of the respondent, Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company
(Metrobank) and six other co-sureties. As sureties, they are bound themselves
to pay Metrobank whatever indebtedness CP Dazo Tannery, Inc. (CPDTI) incurs,
but not exceeding 6 million pesos. CPDTI obtained loans f P100,000 and
P63,825.45, respectively and defaulted in the payment of its loans. Metrobank
made several demands for the payment upon CPDTI but to no avail, which prompted
the former to file a collection suit against the latter. The RTC rendered a
decision in favor of Metrobank and ordered CPDTI and its sureties to pay
Metrobank. The Court of Appeals dismissed the case and issued an Entry of
Judgment. On December 7, 1999 Metrobank filed a motion for execution which was
granted by the RTC Makati. The sheriff then levied on a property registered in
the name of Evangeline D. Imani (petitioner). During the public auction, the
property was awarded to Metrobank as the highest bidder. Imani filed a motion
to nullify the levy on execution, contesting that the same falls under the
conjugal partnership and thus cannot be liable in paying for the debt of CPDTI.
To support her assertion, Evangeline Imani submitted an affidavit executed by
Crisanto Origen, who was the former owner of the property, stating that Sina
Imani and Evangeline Imani were vendees of the property being levied. RTC ruled in favor of
Imani, declaring that the property levied upon is conjugal. On appeal, the CA reversed
the decision of the RTC and denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the
petitioners.
ISSUE:
· W/N the Court of
Appeals erred in reversing the decision of the RTC finding that the property of
Imani is conjugal.
Held
· WHEREFORE, the
petition is DENIED. The Decision and the Resolution of the Court of Appeals in
CA-GR SP No. 93061 sustaining the validity of the writ of execution, the
auction sale, and the certificate of sale are AFFIRMED.
Ratio
- The Court of Appeals
ruled correctly. Although the land was registered with the name Evangelina
Dazo-Imani married to Sina Imani is not enough to prove that the land was
acquired during their marriage. Registration does not necessarily mean the land
was acquired during the marriage but that the land does exist. The affidavit
cannot be given weight as the executor of the affidavit did not appear in court
to affirm the veracity of the affidavit. The same may be said of the checks
submitted. They may not be given probative value and is inadmissible in court.
- 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment