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

such, so that they should not now be allowed to make an inconsistent stand by claiming otherwise. Irreparable damage to future generations - In the landmark case of Oposa v. Factoran (224 SCRA 792 [1993]), several minors represented by their parents, filed a complaint against the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to compel him to cancel all timber license agreements in the country, as well as to stop issuing new ones. The complaint asserted that continued felling of trees in Philippine rainforests would lead to deforestation and consequent irreparable damage, not only to the complainant minors, but to future generations as well. The lower court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to allege with sufficient definiteness a specific legal right they were seeking to enforce and protect. On appeal in the Supreme Court, that argument was rejected and the court ruled that a denial or violation of the right to a balanced and healthful ecology by another, who has a duty to respect or protect the same, gives rise to a cause of action. In this case, the granting of timber license agreements by the DENR, allegedly done with grave abuse of discretion, gave rise to such cause of action.

12% per annum interest.

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 the house as they were the proper owners.

HELD: 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. 1. First mortgage: Compania Agricola Filipina bought rice-cleaning machinery FACTS: LEUNG YEE V. F.L STRONG MACHINERY CO. AND WILLIAMSON 37 SCRA 644

from the machinery company and this was secured by a chattel mortgage on the machinery and the building to which it was installed. Upon failure to pay, the chattel mortgage was foreclosed, the

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

building and machinery sold in public auction and bought by the machinery company. 2. Days after, the Compania Agricola Filipina executed a deed of sale over the land

to which the building stood in favor of the machinery company. This was done to cure

any defects that may arise in the machinery companys ownership of the building. 3. Second mortgage: on or about the date to which the chattel

mortgage was excecuted, Compania executed a real estate mortgage over the building in favor of Leung Yee, distinct and separate from the land. This is to secure payment for its indebtedness for the

construction of the building. Upon failure to pay, the mortgage was foreclosed. 4. The machinery company then filed a case, demanding that it be The trial court held that it was the

declared the rightful owner of the building.

machinery company which was the rightful owner as it had its title before the building was registered prior to the date of registry of Leung Yees certificate.

HELD: The building in which the machinery was installed was real property, and the mere fact that the parties seem to have dealt with it separate and apart from the land on which it stood in no wise changed the character as real property.

It follows that neither the original registry in the chattel mortgage registry of the instrument purporting to be a chattel mortgage of the building and the machinery installed therein, nor the annotation in the registry of the sale of the mortgaged property, had any effect whatever so far as the building is concerned. *LANDMARK CASE