Sunday, December 23, 2018

Imani v. Metrobank (2010)


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.

 - To support her assertion that the property belongs to the conjugal partnership, petitioner submitted the Affidavit of Crisanto Origen, attesting that petitioner and her husband were the vendees of the subject property, and the photocopies of the checks36 allegedly issued by Sina Imani as payment for the subject property. Unfortunately for petitioner, the said Affidavit can hardly be considered sufficient evidence to prove her claim that the property is conjugal. As correctly pointed out by Metrobank, the said Affidavit has no evidentiary weight because Crisanto Origen was not presented in the RTC. 

- 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

Blas v. Santos (1961)

Blas v. Santos (1961) Topic: Future Inheritance, except when authorized by law (Art. 1347) PARTIES : ·        Peti...