Scribd
Upload
28 views1 page

LEUNG YEE V. FRANK L. STRONG MACHINERY COMPANY (G.R. No. L-11658, February 15, 1918)

Uploaded by

Mitzi Caryl Encarnacion

The Frank L. Strong Machinery Company sold rice-cleaning machinery to Compania Agricola Filipina along with constructing a building to house the machinery. Compania Agricola Filipina executed a chattel mortgage on the machinery and building to secure payment without mentioning the land. The mortgage was foreclosed and the property sold. The building was considered real property under Philippine law despite being dealt with separately, so the chattel mortgage had no effect and ownership of the building was determined by real estate law. The Supreme Court ruled the building was real property as it was a permanent structure, and its treatment as separate from the land did not change its legal classification.

Copyright:

© All Rights Reserved
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt

LEUNG YEE V. FRANK L. STRONG MACHINERY COMPANY (G.R. No. L-11658, February 15, 1918)

Uploaded by

Mitzi Caryl Encarnacion
28 views1 page
The Frank L. Strong Machinery Company sold rice-cleaning machinery to Compania Agricola Filipina along with constructing a building to house the machinery. Compania Agricola Filipina executed a chattel mortgage on the machinery and building to secure payment without mentioning the land. The mortgage was foreclosed and the property sold. The building was considered real property under Philippine law despite being dealt with separately, so the chattel mortgage had no effect and ownership of the building was determined by real estate law. The Supreme Court ruled the building was real property as it was a permanent structure, and its treatment as separate from the land did not change its legal classification.

Original Title

LEUNG-YEE-V-STRONG-COMPANY

Copyright

© © All Rights Reserved

Available Formats

DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

The Frank L. Strong Machinery Company sold rice-cleaning machinery to Compania Agricola Filipina along with constructing a building to house the machinery. Compania Agricola Filipina executed a chattel mortgage on the machinery and building to secure payment without mentioning the land. The mortgage was foreclosed and the property sold. The building was considered real property under Philippine law despite being dealt with separately, so the chattel mortgage had no effect and ownership of the building was determined by real estate law. The Supreme Court ruled the building was real property as it was a permanent structure, and its treatment as separate from the land did not change its legal classification.

Copyright:

© All Rights Reserved
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
28 views1 page

LEUNG YEE V. FRANK L. STRONG MACHINERY COMPANY (G.R. No. L-11658, February 15, 1918)

Uploaded by

Mitzi Caryl Encarnacion
The Frank L. Strong Machinery Company sold rice-cleaning machinery to Compania Agricola Filipina along with constructing a building to house the machinery. Compania Agricola Filipina executed a chattel mortgage on the machinery and building to secure payment without mentioning the land. The mortgage was foreclosed and the property sold. The building was considered real property under Philippine law despite being dealt with separately, so the chattel mortgage had no effect and ownership of the building was determined by real estate law. The Supreme Court ruled the building was real property as it was a permanent structure, and its treatment as separate from the land did not change its legal classification.

Copyright:

© All Rights Reserved
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1

PROPERTY 1

LEUNG YEE V. FRANK L. STRONG MACHINERY COMPANY (G.R. No. L-11658, February 15, 1918)

Immovable vs. Immovable


FACTS:
The “Compania Agricola Filipina” bought a considerable quantity of rice-cleaning machinery
company from the defendant machinery company, and executed a chattel mortgage to secure payment of
the purchase price. The mortgage deed the building of strong materials in which the machinery was
installed, without any reference to the land on which it stood. The mortgage was foreclosed
and the property was sold by the sheriff to Strongman machinery.
A few weeks after, “Compania Agricola Filipina” executed a Deed of Sale of the land upon which
the building stood to the machinery company, such Deed, however, was not registered. Furthermore, it
made no reference to the building erected on the land. When the chattel mortgage was executed in favor of
the machinery company, the mortgagor, the "Compañia Agricola Filipina" executed another mortgage upon
the building, separate and apart from the land on which it stood, to secure payment of the balance of its
indebtedness under a contract for the construction of the building. Upon failure to pay, the mortgage was
foreclosed.

Strong  machinery  company  then  filed  a  complaint,  demanding  that  it  be declared  the 
rightful  owner  of  the  building.   The trial judge, relying upon the terms of article 1473 of the Civil Code,
gave judgment in favor of the machinery company, on the ground that the company had its title to the
building registered prior to the date of registry of the plaintiff's certificate.

1. W/N the building can be classified as a real property.


RULING:
1. YES, since the building of strong materials in which the rice-cleaning machinery was installed was
considered real property, therefore, subject to real estate mortgage.

RATIO:
1. 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.
“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, not
the annotation in that registry of the sale of the mortgaged property, had any effect whatever so far as the
building was concerned.”

You might also like