TUMALAD V. VICENCIO The mortgage was extrajudicially foreclosed upon failure to pay the loan.

The
house was sold at a public auction and the plaintiffs were the highest bidder.
A corresponding certificate of sale was issued. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed
an action for ejectment against the defendants, praying that the latter vacate
Although a building is an immovable; the parties to a contract may by the house as they were the proper owners.
agreement treat as personal property that which by nature is a real property
however they are estopped from subsequently claiming otherwise.

FACTS: ISSUE:

Alberta Vicencio and Emiliano Simeon received a loan of P4, 800 from
Gavino and Generosa Tumalad. To guaranty said loan, Vicencio executed a
chattel mortgage in favor of Tumalad over their house of strong materials W/N the chattel mortgage was null and void ab initio because only personal
which stood on a land which was rented from the Madrigal & Company, Inc. properties can be subject of a chattel mortgage.
When Vicencio defaulted in paying, the house was extrajudicially foreclosed,
pursuant to their contract. It was sold to Tumalad and they instituted a Civil
case in the Municipal Court of Manila to have Vicencio vacate the house and
pay rent. HELD:

The MTC decided in favor of Tumalad ordering Vicencio to vacate the house
and pay rent until they have completely vacated the house. Vicencio is
questioning the legality of the chattel mortgage on the ground that 1) the
signature on it was obtained thru fraud and 2) the mortgage is a house of
strong materials which is an immovable therefore can only be the subject of
a REM. On appeal, the CFI found in favor of Tumalad, and since the
Vicencio failed to deposit the rent ordered, it issued a writ of execution,
however the house was already demolished pursuant to an order of the court
in an ejectment suit against Vicencio for non-payment of rentals. Thus the
case at bar.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the chattel mortgage is void since its subject is an immovable
HELD:NO.
Certain deviations have been allowed from the general doctrine that
buildings are immovable property such as when through stipulation, parties
may agree to treat as personal property those by their nature would be real
property. This is partly based on the principle of estoppel wherein the
principle is predicated on statements by the owner declaring his house as
chattel, a conduct that may conceivably stop him from subsequently claiming
otherwise.
In the case at bar, though there be no specific statement referring to the
subject house as personal property, yet by ceding, selling or transferring a
property through chattel mortgage could only have meant that defendant
conveys the house as chattel, or at least, intended to treat the same as such,
so that they should not now be allowed to make an inconsistent stand by
claiming otherwise.

Although a building is by itself an immovable property, parties to a contract

may treat as personal property that which by nature would be real property
and it would be valid and good only insofar as the contracting parties are
concerned. By principle of estoppel, the owner declaring his house to be a
chattel may no longer subsequently claim otherwise.

When Vicencio executed the Chattel Mortgage, it specifically provides that

the mortgagor cedes, sells and transfers by way of Chattel mortgage. They
intended to treat it as chattel therefore are now estopped from claiming
otherwise. Also the house stood on rented land which was held in previous
jurisprudence to be personalty since it was placed on the land by one who
had only temporary right over the property thus it does not become
immobilized by attachment.

[Vicencio though was not made to pay rent since the action was instituted
during the period of redemption therefore Vicencio still had a right to remain
in possession of the property]

TUMALAD vs. VICENCIO, G.R. No. L-30173, September 30, 1971

TUMALAD V. VICENCIO

41 SCRA 143

FACTS:

Vicencio and Simeon executed a chattel mortgage in favor of plaintiffs

Tumalad over their house, which was being rented by Madrigal and
company. This was executed to guarantee a loan, payable in one year with a
12% per annum interest.