Pacific Ace Finance v. Yanagisawa, G.R. No.

175303, April
11, 2012

DEL CASTILLO, J

Facts:

Evelyn Castaeda, a Filipina, who was married to

respondent Yanagisawa, a Japanese, purchased a townhouse
unit located in Manila, which was registered in her name. A
year after their marrige, respondent Yanagisawa filed a
complaint for the declaration of nullity of their marriage on
the ground of bigamy. While the case was pending, he asked
Evelyn to enjoin from disposing or encumbering all of the
property registered in her name. However, she instead
obtained a loan from petitioner Ace Finance and secured
the same by executing a real estate mortgage over the said
townhouse unit. Hence, respondent filed a complaint for the
annulment of the real estate mortgage against Evelyn and
Petitioner Ace, as violation of the order of the trial court.

Issues:

Whether an undertaking not to dispose of a property

pending litigation creates a right in favor of the person
relying thereon.

Ruling:

Yes, it creates such a right. 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 of 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.
In this case, the order issued by the court to enjoin from
dispposing the properties in the name of Evelyn is akin to
an injunction, therefore, all the acts done in violation
thereof are voidable as to the parties enjoined and third
parties not in good faith.