LEUNG YEE, Plaintiff-appellant, -versus- FRANK L. STRONG MACHINERY COMPANY and J. G.

WILLIAMSON, Defendants-appellees. G.R. No. L-11658, FIRST DIVISION, February 15, 1918, CARSON, J. A
factory building is real property, and the mere fact that it is mortgaged and sold, separate and apart
from the land on which it stands, in no wise changes its character as real property. Here, the building of
strong materials in which the rice-cleaning machinery was installed by the "Compañia Agricola Filipina"
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 its character as real property. FACTS: Compañia Agricola
Filipina bought rice-cleaning machinery from Frank L. Strong Machinery Company and to secure the
payment of such, it executed a chattel mortgage over such machineries including the building to which
they are installed. This mortgage was registered in the chattel mortgage registry. Due to its failure to
pay, the mortgaged property was sold and was bought by Strong Machinery Company. Later, Strong
Machinery Company took possession of the said building. Unknown to Strong Machinery Company, the
same buildings are likewise subject of another mortgage executed by Compañia Agricola Filipina in favor
of Leung Yee to secure its outstanding obligation. Compañia Agricola Filipina also defaulted in his
obligation which prompted Yee to levy execution upon the building. Yee subsequently bought the
property in an auction sale and was issued a sheriff's certificate of the sale which he latter registered.
The defendant machinery company filed with the sheriff a sworn statement setting up its claim of title
and demanding the release of the property from the levy. Upon execution of the necessary bond, the
sheriff sold the property to Yee. Thereafter, Yee instituted an action to recover possession of the
building from the machinery company.The RTC relied on Article 1473 of the Civil Code and ruled in favor
in favor of the machinery company holding that the company had its title to the building registered prior
to the date of registry of the plaintiff's certificate. ISSUE: Whether the annotation of a deed of sale of
real property in a chattel mortgage registry can be given the legal effect of an annotation in the registry
of real property. (NO) RULING: The registry referred to in Article 1473 is of course the registry of real
property, and it must be apparent that the annotation or inscription of a deed of sale of real property in
a chattel mortgage registry cannot be given the legal effect of an inscription in the registry of real
property. By its express terms, the Chattel Mortgage Law contemplates and makes provision for
mortgages of personal property; and the sole purpose and object of the chattel mortgage registry is to
provide for the registry of "chattel mortgages," that is to say, mortgages of personal property executed
in the manner and form prescribed in the statute. The building of strong materials in which the rice-
cleaning machinery was installed by the "Compañia Agricola Filipina" 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 its character as real property. It follows that neither the original registry in the chattel
mortgage of the building and the machinery installed therein, nor the annotation in that registry of the
sale of the mortgaged property, had any effect whatever so far as the building was concerned.