Title
Pacific Ace Fice, Ltd. vs. Yanagisawa
Case
G.R. No. 175303
Decision Date
Apr 11, 2012
A Filipina wife mortgaged property despite a court order prohibiting encumbrance during her marriage nullity case with a Japanese spouse, leading to a Supreme Court ruling affirming the mortgage's voidability due to bad faith and violation of the order.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 190755)

Factual Antecedents

Eiji and Evelyn were married on July 12, 1989, after which Evelyn purchased a townhouse in Parañaque on August 23, 1995, which was registered in her name. In 1996, Eiji filed for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Evelyn, asserting grounds of bigamy. During this litigation, Eiji sought a restraining order to prevent Evelyn from disposing of properties registered in her name. In an open court commitment acknowledged by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Evelyn, through her counsel, undertook not to dispose of her properties during the pendency of the case.

Court Orders and Property Registration

The commitment was subsequently formalized in an October 2, 1996 order from the Makati RTC, which mandated that Evelyn would not dispose of or encumber her properties during the ongoing case. This order was officially recorded as an annotation on the title of the townhouse unit. Despite this commitment, Evelyn later secured a loan from PAFIN, executing a real estate mortgage on August 25, 1998, using the townhouse as collateral without seeking Eiji's consent.

Subsequent Legal Actions

Upon discovering the mortgage, Eiji filed a complaint for its annulment against both Evelyn and PAFIN, asserting that the mortgage violated the prior court order. The Parañaque RTC dismissed Eiji’s complaint, arguing that as a foreign national, he lacked ownership rights over the property and thus had no standing to challenge the mortgage.

Court of Appeals Decision

Eiji appealed the dismissal, contending that the Parañaque RTC improperly interfered with the Makati RTC’s jurisdiction regarding the property rights. The Court of Appeals (CA) found Eiji's appeal meritorious, asserting that the earlier Makati RTC decision had established Eiji's claim to a share in the proceeds from the property. The CA determined that Eiji had a valid cause of action to annul the mortgage based on Evelyn's commitment to forgo encumbering the property.

Determination of Good Faith

The CA ruled that PAFIN entered into the mortgage in bad faith, having acknowledged a lack of due diligence in verifying the title and disregarding the annotated court order that highlighted the legal impediments regarding the property. Consequently, the CA annulled the mortgage executed by Evelyn in favor of PAFIN.

Petitioner's Arguments

PAFIN contested the CA’s decision, arguing that it misapplied the law concerning foreign ownership of real property and maintained that Evelyn was the sole owner and could mortgage the property without Eiji's consent. PAFIN emphasized that Eiji's inability to own real estate in the Philippines negated any claims he could have against the mortgage.

Respondent's Position

Eiji, on the other hand, argued that the commitment made by Evelyn, alongside the provision in the earlier RTC decision declaring his entitlement to the proceeds from the property, solidified his interest in seeking the annulment of the mortgage. He stressed that PAFIN's lack of due diligence constituted bad faith, allowing him the grounds to challenge the REM.

Issues for Resolution

The legal issues arose surrounding Eiji’s standing as a foreign national in relation to property ownership in the Philippines, the classification of the property as conjugal or paraphernal, the implications of the Makati RTC's rulings on property rights, and the jurisdictional conflict between the two RTCs.

Court's Ruling

The Court affirmed the CA's decision, clarifying tha

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.