Unsubstantiated

All property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership. However for this presumption to apply there must be proof that it was acquired during the marriage. This is the ruling in this case of spouses Rica and Manny.

Rica was one of the sureties of a loan obtained from a bank (the Bank) by a business corporation (the Company), amounting to a total of P160,000. When the Company defaulted in the payment of the loan, the Bank filed a collection suit against the Company and its sureties, including Rica, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC).

After due proceedings, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of the Bank ordering the Company and all its sureties including Rica to pay the total outstanding loan already amounting to P260,000. When this decision became final and executory, a writ of execution was issued against Company and its co-defendants-sureties including Rica. To implement the writ of execution, the Sheriff levied on a property covered by TCT No. T-27967 registered in the name of “Rica married to Manny.”

Rica questioned said levy, claiming that the property belongs to the conjugal partnership. As such she asserts that it cannot be made to answer for her personal obligation with the Bank. To support her assertion, she submitted the Affidavit of the Seller of said property, attesting that Rica and her husband Manny were the buyers of the subject property. Also submitted were the photocopies of the checks allegedly issued by Manny as payment for said property. In fact she said that the title to the land shows that it was registered in the name of “Rica married to Manny.” Was Rica correct?

No. Indeed, all property of the marriage is presumed to be conjugal. However, the party who invokes this presumption must first prove that the property in controversy was acquired during the marriage. Thus the time when the property was acquired is material.

Unfortunately for Rica, the affidavit she presented can hardly be considered sufficient evidence to prove her claim. The basic rule of evidence is that unless the affiant is placed on the witness stand to testify on his affidavit, such affidavit must be rejected for being hearsay. In this case, the Seller was not presented in the RTC to affirm the veracity of his affidavit.

In the same vein, the photocopies of the checks cannot be given any probative value. A photocopy of a document has no probative value and is inadmissible as evidence.

Similarly the certificate of title could not support Rica’s assertion. The fact that the land was registered in the name of “Rica, married to Manny” is no proof that the property was acquired during their marriage. Acquisition of title and registration thereof are two different acts. Registration does not confer title but merely confirms one already existing.

Indubitably, Rica utterly failed to substantiate her claim that the property belongs to the conjugal partnership (Imani vs. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, G.R. 187023, November 17, 2010, 635 SCRA, 357).

*      *      *

Email: [email protected].