Pacific

Ace v Yanagisawa

Topic: Presumption of ACP (FC, 93 & NCC, 160)

Facts:
1989- Eiji Yanagisawa (Japanese national) & Evelyn Castaneda (Filipina)
contracted marriage in Manila
1995- Evelyn purchased a 152sqm townhouse located in Paranaque City
1996- Eiji filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of his marriage w/
Evelyn on the ground of bigamy w/ RTC Makati
Eiji filed a Motion for the Issuance of a Restraining Order against Evelyn
and an Application for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction to enjoin Evelyn
from disposing or encumbering all of the properties registered in her name
Evelyn and her lawyer subsequently undertook not to dispose the properties
during the pendency of the case, which rendered Eijis application and
motion moot
Nevertheless, RTC confirmed and ordered that Evelyn would not dispose,
alienate, or encumber the properties under her name (including the
Paranaque unit) during the pendency of the nullity case
1997- During the pendency of the case, Evelyn obtained a P500,000 loan
from Pacific Ace Finance, Ltd. (PAFIN), in which she executed a real estate
mortgage (REM) of the Paranaque townhouse unit in favor of PAFIN to
secure such loan
Thereafter, Makati RTC dissolved the marriage of Eiji & Evelyn and ordered
the liquidation of their properties and the proceeds be divided between the
parties
Eiji filed a complaint for the annulment of REM against Evelyn and PAFIN for
the non-compliance of the Makati RTC order w/ RTC Paranaque
PAFIN denied prior knowledge of the Makati RTC order and admitted that
they did not conduct any verification of the title w/ the Registry of Deeds of
Paranaque City because Evelyn was a good, friendly, and trusted neighbor
PAFIN also maintained that Eiji has no personality to seek the annulment of
the REM because he is a foreigner, thus he cannot own real estate properties
in the RP
Evelyn also denied of having knowledge of the Makati RTC order, that she
paid the property w/ her own funds, and that she is the exclusive owner of
the property
RTC Paranaque dismissed Eijis complaint and stated that Eiji has no cause of
action because he is a foreigner and cannot own real estate properties in the
RP
Eiji filed an appeal w/ CA and stated that RTC Paranaque erred in holding
that his inability to own real estate property in the RP deprives him of all
interest in the mortgage property, which was bought w/ his money, and that
RTC Makati already recognized his contribution in the purchase of the

property when it declared that he is entitled to of the proceeds that would

be obtained from the sale
Eiji also added that Evelyn made a commitment w/ RTC Makati that she
would not dispose, alienate, or encumber the properties registered in her
name while the case was still pending
CA approved Eijis appeal, annulled and set aside the RTC Paranaques
decision to dimiss Eijis complaint, and annulled the REM executed in favor
of PAFIN
CA also stated that RTC Paranaque violated the doctrine of noninterference (Courts of equal jurisdiction, such as regional trial courts, have
no appellate jurisdiction over each other) when it ignored the prior decision
of RTC Makati
PAFIN and Evelyn filed separate motions for reconsideration, but was denied
by CA
PAFIN filed a petition w/ SC

Issue: W/N Eiji has a cause of action in annulling the REM

Ruling: Yes

Evelyn committed to Makati RTC that she will not dispose, alienate, or
encumber the poperties registered in her name while the nullity case was
still pending
Thus, based on jurisprudence, all acts done in violation of a standing
injunction order are voidable as to the party enjoined and third parties
who are not in good faith
The party, in whose favor the injunction is issued, has a cause of action to
seek the annulment of the offending actions
SC stated: An injunction or restraining order must be obeyed while it
remains in full force and effect until the injunction or restraining order
has been set aside, vacated, or modified by the court which granted it, or
until the order or decree awarding it has been reversed on appeal. The
injunction must be obeyed irrespective of the ultimate validity of the
order, and no matter how unreasonable and unjust the injunction may be
in its terms.
Petition denied, CA decision affirmed