Not applicable

This case of Mely is another example when a spouse was not able to invoke the rule that all property of the marriage is presumed to be conjugal property.

Mely who is married to Noli, signed as one of the sureties in a loan of P160,000 obtained by a corporation (CLP) from a bank.

Because of business reverses however, CLP was not able to pay the loan on its maturity. So the bank filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a collection suit against the company and its sureties including Mely.

After due proceedings the RTC rendered a decision in favor of the bank ordering the company and all its sureties to pay the total outstanding loan already amounting to P260,000. Upon finality of said decision, a Writ of Execution was issued by the RTC against the company and its co-defendants-sureties including Mely. To implement the writ, the Sheriff levied on a property covered by TCT No. T-34634 registered in the name of “Mely married to Noli”.

Mely however questioned the levy claiming that the said property belongs to the conjugal partnership or is presumed to be a conjugal property. In fact she said that the title to the property shows that it is registered in the name of “Mely married to Noli”. Hence she contended that it cannot be made to answer for her personal obligation to the bank as one of the sureties of the company which obtained the loan. Was Mely correct?

No. Indeed all property of the marriage is presumed to be conjugal property. However, the party who invokes the presumption must first prove that it was acquired during the marriage. Thus the time when the property was acquired is material. In this case, there is insufficient proof when it was acquired.

The Certificate of Title showing that the land was registered in the name of “Mely married to Noli” is no proof that it was acquired during the marriage. Acquisition of title and registration thereof are two different acts. Registration does not confer title but merely confirms one already existing. So the certificate of title alone cannot support Mely’s assertion. She must still prove when it was acquired (Imani vs. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, G.R. 187023, November 12, 2010, 635 SCRA 352).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law, Volume I and Criminal Law, Volumes I and II are now available at 403 Sunrise condominium, 226 Ortigas Ave., Greenhills, San Juan, tel no. 7249445, email: [email protected]