You are on page 1of 2

Tumalad v.

Vicencio

G.R. No. L-30173 30, September, 1971

FACTS:

On September 1, 1955 Defendants Alberta Vicencio and Emiliano Simeon


executed a chattel mortgage on their property in Quezon Boulevard Quiapo Manila
in favor of the Tumalads. The said chattel mortgage acts as a guarantee to the
4,800 loan that the Petitioners Gavino and Generosa Tumalad granted to Vicencio
and Simeon. It was stipulated by the parties that upon default the remaining
balance would become immediately due. Vicencio and Simeon defaulted and the
property was foreclosed. It was sold in a public auction and the highest bidders were
the Tumalads.

The Tumalads filed a civil case in the Municipal Court praying that Vicencio and
Simeon should vacate the property and pay rent of Php. 200 from March 27, 1956
up to the time the property is surrendered. The Municipal Court granted the prayer.
Vicencio and Simeon in their answer stated that the Municipal Court has no
jurisdiction to try the case because it was about ownership and there was no
allegation of prior possession another is that there was no proof for prior demand.

The Court of First Instance decided in favor of the Tumalads and granted them
motion for execution. But the judgement for the surrender of possession to the
Tumalads cannot be executed anymore because the property was demolished.

ISSUES:

Whether or not Vicencio and Simeon are legally bound to pay rentals within the
one year period that is provided by law for the redemption of the foreclosed
property.

HELD:

No. The Supreme Court stated that in the instant case, the parties specifically
stipulated that "the chattel mortgage will be enforceable in accordance with the
provisions of Special Act No. 3135 ... (Emphasis supplied).

Section 6 of the Act referred to provides that the debtor-mortgagor (defendants-


appellants herein) may, at any time within one year from and after the date of the
auction sale, redeem the property sold at the extra judicial foreclosure sale. Section
7 of the same Act allows the purchaser of the property to obtain from the court the
possession during the period of redemption: but the same provision expressly
requires the filing of a petition with the proper Court of First Instance and the
furnishing of a bond. It is only upon filing of the proper motion and the approval of
the corresponding bond that the order for a writ of possession issues as a matter of
course. No discretion is left to the court. In the absence of such a compliance, as in
the instant case, the purchaser cannot claim possession during the period of
redemption as a matter of right. In such a case, the governing provision is Section
34, Rule 39, of the Revised Rules of Court 34 which also applies to properties
purchased in extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings.

Since the defendants-appellants were occupying the house at the time of the
auction sale, they are entitled to remain in possession during the period of
redemption or within one year from and after 27 March 1956, the date of the
auction sale, and to collect the rents or profits during the said period.

As Section 6 of Special Act No. 3135 provides:

Section 6 of the Act referred to provides that the debtor-mortgagor may, at any
time within one year from and after the date of the auction sale, redeem the
property sold at the extra judicial foreclosure sale.

As Section 7 of Special Act No. 3135 provides:

Section 7 of the same Act allows the purchaser of the property to obtain from the
court the possession during the period of redemption: but the same provision
expressly requires the filing of a petition with the proper Court of First Instance and
the furnishing of a bond. It is only upon filing of the proper motion and the approval
of the corresponding bond that the order for a writ of possession issues as a matter
of course. No discretion is left to the court.