At Davao, Davao, P. I., on August 24, 1918, the Gulf Plantation Company,  a corporation, through its president, executed to the Philippine National Bank a certain instrument known in the record as Exhibit A, in which the Plantation Company is named and styled as the pledgor, and the Philippine National Bank as the  pledgee, in  which it is recited  that the  Gulf  Plantation  Company  has  obtained certain  credits, loans, overdrafts,  etc., from the pledgee, which. the parties have mutually agreed should be guaranteed and secured, including the costs, charges, and interest "of keeping the pledged property," and "all other expenditures of  the  pledgee  incurred  in connection with  this pledge."  In consideration thereof, and other valuable consideration received by the  pledgor, and for the purpose of securing the payment  of all  sums not  exceeding P165,000, the pledgor hypothecated and  pledged to the pledgee and hereby  delivered the  possession,  for  the  purpose of  the pledge,  of all  the property itemized in schedule  A on  the back  of this pledge.  The  pledgor  agreed without demand to pledge and deliver to the pledgee any further and  additional securities required, and to pay the taxes and keep the property insured.   That, if the pledgor shall pay to the pledgee such sums of  money as  the pledgee may advance under the terms  of the  pledge, then the pledged property may be returned  to the pledgor,  and "this pledge shall be of no further effect, otherwise, to remain in force, and the pledgee  may dispose of the pledged property in the manner herein provided,  or in  accordance  with the Chattel Mortgage  Law, at the option of the pledgee."  The pledgor appoints the pledgee as attorney-in-fact  of the pledgor with full power and authority after any condition of the pledge may  have  been broken  to enter  the premises where  the pledged property is located, and take possession  of it by force, if necessary, and seize and take  actual possession of it without an order of the court,  and  to sell, assign and deliver the property pledged, or  any part thereof, at the option of the pledgee.  Provision is then made for the application of the proceeds of any sale of the property under the pledge.  The instrument was duly executed and acknowledged before a notary public as  of the date it was signed.

Schedule A, which is a part of the instrument,  is as follows :

"Lease No. 63 of 534 hectares of public land situated in the municipality district of Pantucan, Davao Province, P. I., planted to 236,000 hemp and 700 coconut trees, valued at P430,000.

"Forty-eight buildings of permanent materials valued at P5,500 situated on above lease.   Two buildings of strong materials  valued at P15,000.

"One thousand piculs hemp now in the plantation bodega at Pantucan all belonging to the 'Gulf Plantation, Incorporated' valued  at P45,000. "Twenty three carabaos, 38 bullocks,  18  horses, valued at P6,450.

"One launch 'Peril' valued at P18,000; one auxiliary boat "Manuela," P9,000; one launch 'Rigel'  P800; one  launch 'New Kirk,' P3,500 and  cargo boats, P200."

The instrument  contains the following endorsement:

	"THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF DAVAO
"Doc. stamps	"OFFICE OF THE REGISTER OF DEEDS
affixed	"Received this 24th day of Feb., 1921,
"P17.20	at 9.30 o'clock a. m.
"Entry No. 90, page 3, Volume Day Book (Provisional).
	"THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF DAVAO
	"OFFICE OF THE REGISTER OF DEEDS
	"Received this 24th day of Feb., 1921,
	at 9.30 o'clock a. m."

March 25,  1922, an insolvency petition was filed to  have the Gulf Plantation Company declared insolvent, and it was declared insolvent on  September 16, 1922,  and the court ordered the sheriff to take possession of all the  assets of the insolvent estate.   October 2S,  1922, with  the  consent and  approval of  all  creditors,  including  the Philippine National Bank, an assignee was appointed, and on  October 27,1922, he filed an inventory of all of the properties of the plantation  company,   March  17, 1923,  the  court made an order requiring the assignee  to render an account and  to give the creditors a copy.  March 20,1923, the assignee filed his account for the period between October 1, 1922, and February 28, 1923.  On January 7, 1924, the assignee filed a further account covering the period from October  1, 1922, to November 30, 1923.  Both of which accounts are still pending and waiting the approval of the court.  November 28, 1923, the assignee filed a petition for authority to sell at public auction all of the properties of the insolvent estate, which application is also now pending and waiting the order of the court.  November  3,  1922, the Philippine National Bank filed  a petition, to which was attached a  copy of Exhibit  A and made a part of it, reciting the execution of the instrument and a breach of its conditions, and praying for the following order from  the court:

   "(a)  That the mortgage or pledge executed in its favor by the Gulf Plantation, Inc., a copy of which is attached to this claim as Appendix A be declared effective and matured;

"(b)  That the assignee appointed in this  insolvency proceeding,  or if the  latter  has not yet been appointed, the sheriff of the Province of Davao be authorized to sell  at public or private  sale, after  notice to  the  Philippine National Bank,  all such  interest, right or share  as the Gulf Plantation, Inc. has  or  may have in the properties described in Exhibit A;

"(c)  That should the proceeds of the sale of the properties mentioned in Appendix A be greater than the sum of P165,000, this amount of P165,000  be delivered to the Philippine National Bank, and the balance  to  the  assignee in insolvency; and

"(d)  In the event that the proceeds of  the sale of the properties mentioned  in Appendix A is less than the sum of P165,000, that said proceeds be delivered to the Philippine National  Bank, and for the balance of difference not paid of the debt of the insolvent corporation to the claimant company,  the Philippine National Bank be admitted as an ordinary creditor in this insolvency proceeding."

February 9, 1924, the bank, through the fiscal of Davao, and  in compliance with an order of the court, filed objections to the  approval  of  the accounts rendered  by the assignee.

In this situation, the court rendered a judgment in favor of the Philippine National Bank to  the effect that it was entitled to the possession of all of the estate of the insolvent corporation, and that in the year 1919 the bank had appointed H. B. Hughes as its representative or administrator of the properties of the Plantation Company, and requiring the bank to pay certain preferred claims, including the income tax and the land tax, and that the bank was entitled to, and should have,  possession of all the properties of the insolvent  corporation, and to have the property sold and the proceeds of the sale applied to the satisfaction of the claim of the bank, and upon the payment of such preferred claims, to have the proceeds of the sale applied to the satisfaction of the claim of the bank, and that the creditors of the Plantation Company should share in any amount remaining  after  such application,  and dismissed the case, without costs.

From this judgment, the creditors  appeal and  assign the following errors:

"I. The  lower court erred in not finding and  holding that the so-called 'agreement of pledge' executed by the insolvent Gulf Plantation Company in favor of the Philippine National Bank is  null and void on account of its many defects.

"II. The lower court erred in not finding and  holding that the Philippine National Bank has renounced its alleged preferred lien on the properties of the insolvent covered by the pledge, by giving its consent to  the appointment of an assignee and by permitting said assignee to take possession of said properties.

"III. The lower court erred in not finding and holding that the claim of the Philippine National  Bank is an ordinary claim.

"IV. The lower court erred in holding that  the Philippine National  Bank is entitled to the possession of the properties  of the insolvent.

"V. The lower court erred in holding that the mortgage in favor of the Philippine National Bank  is effective and due.

"VI. The lower court erred in not overruling the opposition of  the Philippine National Bank dated February 9, 1924, to the accounts submitted by the assignee.

"VII. The lower  erred in  dismissing  the  insolvency proceedings."

JOHNS, J.:

In view of the numerous recitals  made  in  it,  what is known in the record as Exhibit A must be construed as a pledge in both form and substance.  It is very apparent from the language used in the instrument that it was prepared on the customary blank  form of a pledge for the taking of properties under a pledge.  It will be noted that it was never received or filed for any purpose until the 24th of February, 1921, which  was two years and a half after it was executed, and that  it was then endorsed, only received in the "office of the  register of deeds" with "Entry No. 90 page 3, Volume Day Book  (Provisional)."  That is to say, there is  no evidence that it was ever received, filed or recorded anywhere or by anyone, either as a chattel mortgage or a pledge  of personal property.  Hence, the receiving of it in the office of the register of deeds on February 24, 1921, is  a nullity  as to both a pledge and a chattel mortgage.

The only witness for either  party was  Carlos Garcia, the manager of the bank at Davao, and he was called for the sole purpose of testifying as to the  amount  of  the bank's claim, which he placed at about P60,000, and that it was  due and owing.   To  make Exhibit A  valid as  a pledge,  as to  the  personal property therein described, it was the duty of the bank to take the actual, physical possession  of the property,  and  to  continue  and remain in such possession, and to make it  valid against creditors or the assignee, the bank must have been in such actual, physical possession at the time the  Plantation  Company was declared insolvent.  Upon that question, there is  no  evidence in the record.   Without it, Exhibit  A is void as  a pledge,  and the bank would  not have  a preference,  and would not now be entitled to the possession  of the property of the Plantation Company, or to have it sold and the proceeds applied to the satisfaction of its claim.

Upon the question of pledge,  article-1863 of the Civil Code provides:

"In addition to the requisites mentioned  in article 1857, it shall  be necessary, in order to constitute the contract of pledge, that the pledge be placed in  the possession of the creditor or of a third person appointed by common consent."

Section 4 of Act No. 1508,  entitled  "An Act providing for the  mortgaging of personal property, and for the registration of the mortgages so executed"'  provides:

"A chattel mortgage shall not be valid against any person except the mortgagor, his executors or administrators, unless the possession of the  property is delivered to and retained by the mortgagee or unless the mortgage is recorded in the office of the register of deeds of the province in which the mortgagor resides at the time of making the same, or, if he resides without the Philippine Islands, in the province in which the property is situated."

That  is to say,  a chattel mortgage is  not valid  against any person except the mortgagor, his executors or administrators, without delivery of possession of the property,  unless the mortgage is recorded in the office of the register of deeds of the province.  It will be noted that, in the  absence of such delivery of possession or the recording of the instrument  in the office of the register of  deeds, a chattel mortgage is valid  only as to the mortgagor, his executors or administrators.  Hence,  it follows that, in the  absence of such record and the delivery of possession, a chattel mortgage is void as against the creditors or the assignee of an insolvent estate, and upon that question, there is no evidence in the record.

If it was the purpose and intent of the bank to have Exhibit A received, filed  and recorded as a chattel mortgage, it was not only its duty to so instruct the register of deeds, but it was its further  duty to see that the instrument was received, filed and recorded as a chattel mortgage.  Upon that point, there is no evidence.

Again,  in the very nature of  things, a pledge or chattel mortgage is confined and limited to personal property, and it cannot  be extended or made to apply to real property.

In what is known as schedule A, attached to Exhibit A, the property is described as lease No.  63 of 534 hectares of public land planted to 236,000 hemp and 700  coconut trees valued at P430,000, and forty-eight buildings of permanent materials  valued at P5,500, and two buildings of strong materials valued at P15,000.  It may well be doubted whether that  kind of property could become the  subject-matter of a pledge or chattel mortgage

It will be noted that it  is a pledge of a lease of public land which  is planted to hemp and coconut trees, and of forty-eight buildings of permanent materials and of two buildings of strong materials, clearly indicating that the buildings were attached to the  soil and as such would  be real estate.

It will also be noted that the pledge was executed in 1918, and it is very probable that the one thousand piculs of hemp have long since been sold.  As to the twenty-three carabaos, thirty-eight bullocks and eighteen horses,  there is no provision for the increase.  Hence, the pledge, if valid for any purpose,  should be confined and  limited to the particular property described in the pledge, and would not include any increase.

That is to say, if it be a fact that at the time the pledge was executed the bank took the actual, physical possession of the property described in it, and continued to remain in such possession  up to the time the petition for insolvency was filed, or that it was in such possession for more than thirty days prior to the filing of the petition, the pledge would  then  be valid as to the personal  property, and the bank would then have a preference on that property for the amount found due and owing upon its  claim.  If it be a fact that the bank was not in the actual, physical possession of the property at the time the insolvency petition was  filed, and  that the Plantation  Company was in such possession as its own, then the bank would not have a preference over any other unsecured creditor.

From what has been said, it follows that the  judgment of the  lower court is reversed, and the case remanded, with instructions for the assignee to proceed with the administration of the  insolvent estate in  the ordinary course of business  and in the manner provided by law, and for such further  proceedings  as  are not  inconsistent  with  this opinion, with costs  in favor  of the appellant.  So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Street,  Villamor,  Ostrand, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.