Second, the creditor may aim to secure the more advantageous recourse of the judicial sale.  Second, the dual registration system requires that certain mortgages be registered with the Registrar of Ureds of different provinces.  This system applies in two cases. The first is when the secured movable property is located in a province different from the province where the mortgage lender resides. In this case, the mortgage must be registered in the document register of both provinces. The second is when the guaranteed assets include shares of a company. If the registered office or principal registered offices of the company are located in a province other than that in which the Mortgagor is domiciled, double registration is again required.  The dual registration requirement has been criticized as cumbersome and cost-effective because it unnecessarily requires potential creditors to search the records of each province in which a mortgage granted by the debtor could be registered.  The mortgage is similar to the floating lien in the United States, where the mortgage debtor is allowed to properly sell the secured assets and replace the secured goods; See Gilmore, a.a.O. Note 9, and in particular s 11.7. The United States does not have the “Floating Charge”, a corporate security instrument specific to common law jurisdictions. It allows the debtor to manage his assets until the variable fee is converted into a fixed fee.
Some of the main problems with variable load are: the difficulty of determining when a load is a variable load or a fixed load; and the large circumstances under which a floating charge can be transformed into a solid charge in the event of crystallization. Note that in New Zealand, the Personal Property Security Act abolished floating charges in 1999.  Monserrat v Ceron (1933) 58 Phil 469; and Chua Guan vs. Samahang Magasaka (1935) 62 Phil 477. In these cases, these were equity mortgages. The mortgage was declared null and void for non-registration in the register of documents. Registration with the issuing company did not confirm the mortgages. Section 3 of the Chattel Mortgage Law Act defines a chattel mortgage as “a conditional sale of personal property for the purpose of settling a debt or other obligation set out therein; and the sale is cancelled if the seller (debtor) pays a sum of money to the buyer (creditor) or advances another deed. If the condition is met in accordance with their conditions, the mortgage and sale are immediately cancelled and the mortgage holder is thus removed from his property. Unfortunately, this definition promotes material ambiguity.
Among other things, it is not certain that the mortgage represents a sale or a hypothec in the strict sense of the common law? If it is a sale, it can be argued that the Commission, probably unconsciously, has revived the retro civil pacto which, as has already been mentioned, had previously fallen into disrepair.  If one wishes to favour the latter interpretation which, as it exists, is the best view, s 3 can be considered as an import into the Philippines of a common law concept, unknown to the civil system. . . .