Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 90 views

    Imani V Metrobank

    Uploaded by

    IkangApostol
    This document summarizes a court case between Imani v Metrobank. It details that: Evangeline Imani co-signed a surety agreement with Metrobank for loans to CPDTI, who defaulted on the loans. Metrobank sued and won a judgment against CPDTI and its sureties. At a public auction to satisfy the debt, Metrobank was the highest bidder but Evangeline claimed the property was conjugal and not subject to levy. The RTC initially agreed but reversed upon motion from Metrobank. The CA then reversed the RTC.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Imani V Metrobank

    Uploaded by

    IkangApostol
    90 views1 page
    This document summarizes a court case between Imani v Metrobank. It details that: Evangeline Imani co-signed a surety agreement with Metrobank for loans to CPDTI, who defaulted on the loans. Metrobank sued and won a judgment against CPDTI and its sureties. At a public auction to satisfy the debt, Metrobank was the highest bidder but Evangeline claimed the property was conjugal and not subject to levy. The RTC initially agreed but reversed upon motion from Metrobank. The CA then reversed the RTC.

    Original Description:

    Case Digest

    Original Title

    Imani v Metrobank

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a court case between Imani v Metrobank. It details that: Evangeline Imani co-signed a surety agreement with Metrobank for loans to CPDTI, who defaulted on the loans. Metrobank sued and won a judgment against CPDTI and its sureties. At a public auction to satisfy the debt, Metrobank was the highest bidder but Evangeline claimed the property was conjugal and not subject to levy. The RTC initially agreed but reversed upon motion from Metrobank. The CA then reversed the RTC.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    90 views1 page

    Imani V Metrobank

    Uploaded by

    IkangApostol
    This document summarizes a court case between Imani v Metrobank. It details that: Evangeline Imani co-signed a surety agreement with Metrobank for loans to CPDTI, who defaulted on the loans. Metrobank sued and won a judgment against CPDTI and its sureties. At a public auction to satisfy the debt, Metrobank was the highest bidder but Evangeline claimed the property was conjugal and not subject to levy. The RTC initially agreed but reversed upon motion from Metrobank. The CA then reversed the RTC.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Antecedent

    Facts Application of Law

    Imani v • Evangeline D. Imani signed a Continuing Section 16 of Rule 39, Rules of Court
    Metrobank Suretyship Agreement in favor of
    Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company , with a third-party claimant or a stranger to the
    Cesar P. Dazo, Nieves Dazo, Benedicto C. foreclosure suit, can opt to file a remedy known
    Dazo, Cynthia C. Dazo, Doroteo Fundales, Jr., as terceria against the sheriff or officer effecting
    and Nicolas Ponce as her co-sureties. As the writ by serving on him an affidavit of his title
    sureties, they bound themselves to pay and a copy thereof upon the judgment creditor.
    Metrobank whatever indebtedness C.P. By the terceria, the officer shall not be bound to
    Dazo Tannery, Inc. (CPDTI) incurs, but not keep the property and could be answerable for
    exceeding Six Million Pesos damages.
    (₱6,000,000.00).
    • CPDTI obtained loans of ₱100,000.00 and
    ₱63,825.45, respectively. The loans were
    Article 160 of the New Civil Code
    evidenced by promissory notes signed by
    Cesar and Nieves Dazo. CPDTI defaulted in • provides that "all property of the
    the payment of its loans. Metrobank made marriage is presumed to belong to the
    several demands for payment upon CPDTI, conjugal partnership; unless it be proved
    but to no avail. This prompted Metrobank that it pertains exclusively to the
    to file a collection suit against CPDTI and its husband or to the wife."
    sureties • party invoking this has burden of proof.
    • RTC decided in favor of Metrobank. Appeald • photocopies of checks and Intestate
    to CA. DENIED Estate have no
    • Metrobank filed a motion for execution. • probative value and cannot be accepted
    GRANTED. Public auction conducted, which as evidence
    Metrobank won as highest bidder. • no proof the subject property was
    Metrobank then asked the RTC through a acquired during the
    Manifestation and Motion to compel the
    • Marriage
    Imani couple to surrender the property

    title. Evangeline opposed since such is
    conjugal property *Subject property not duly proven to be conjugal,
    • RTC initially sided with Evangeline, but thus cannot be levied to satisfy the debt of
    reversed itself upon MR by Metrobank. CA Evangeline
    reversed RTC

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy