Insufficient proof

All property of the marriage is presumed to be conjugal. 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 Elvie, married to Manny.

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

After due proceedings, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of MBTC ordering CPDTI and all its sureties 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 CDTI and its co-defendants-sureties including Elvie. To implement the writ of execution, the Sheriff levied on a property covered by TCT No. T-27967 registered in the name of “Elvie married to Manny”.

Elvie questioned the said levy, claiming that said property belongs to the conjugal partnership. As such she asserts that it cannot be made to answer for her personal obligation with the MBTC. To support her assertion, she submitted the Affidavit of Cris, the Seller of said property, attesting that Elvie and her husband Manny were the buyers of the subject property, and 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 “Elvie married to Manny”. Was Elvie 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 Elvie, 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, Cris 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 Elvie’s assertion. The fact that the land was registered in the name of “Elvie, 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, Elvie 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).

* * *

All Ateneo Law School alumni are invited to the 75th year Grand Alumni Homecoming on Oct. 21, 2011, Friday at the Isla Ballroom of the Edsa Shangri-la Hotel, Mandaluyong City starting at 5 p.m. with a mass at Boracay room. Host of the affair is Ateneo Law School Class of 1987 which has prepared programs and activities for classmates, colleagues and friends to reconnect, reminisce and relive the good old days at Padre Faura, dela Costa and Rockwell. It will be great to see you there.