G.R. No. 3467

Facts
– Plaintiffs sold a drug store to the defendant on 11 April 1902.
– The original contract (₱1,650) stipulated the store as security for payment and was renewed several times, the last renewal dated 30 November 1904.
– By the time the action was filed, ₱1,300 remained unpaid.
– Plaintiffs sued for the balance and for the sale of the store to satisfy the judgment.
– The trial court awarded the ₱1,300 and ordered that, if unpaid, the sheriff sell the store located at No. 116 Calle Ilaya, Manila.
– Defendant appealed, contending that the documents executed merely created a chattel mortgage (personal security) and not a real (chattel) mortgage over the immovable property, thus the forced sale was improper.

Issue
Whether the judgment‑decreed sale of the drug store is a valid means of execution when the security instrument is a chattel mortgage rather than a real mortgage on the property.

Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that ₱1,300 is due, but reversed the portion of the judgment ordering the forced sale of the drug store. The Court held that the documents proved only a chattel mortgage, which does not authorize sale of the immovable property to satisfy the debt. Execution may be directed only against whatever property of the defendant is subject to attachment, not specifically the drug store. Consequently, the judgment for the amount due (with interest from 23 January 1906 and costs) stands, while the order to sell the store is nullified.