Case Digest: Imani vs. Metrobank

G.R. No. 187023: November 17, 2010


Nachura, J.:


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. CPDTI incurred an indebtednessaround 164,000 php 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 favour 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.


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.



Civil Law: Conjugal Property

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 conditionsine qua nonto 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

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.