LOPEZ Vs OROSA

 

ENRIQUE LOPEZ vs. VICENTE OROSA, JR. and PLAZA THEATRE, INC. [G.R. Nos. L-10817-18, February 28, 1958] FELIX, J.: FACTS: Enrique Lopez is a resident of Balayan, Batangas, doing business under the trade name of Lopez-Castelo Sawmill. Sometime in May, 1946, Vicente Orosa invites the petitioner to make an investment in the theater business. It was esti es tima mate ted d that that Or Oros osa, a, his his fam famil ily y an and d cl clos ose e frie friend nds s we were re organ organiz izin ing g a corp co rpor orat atio ion n to be kn know own n as Pl Plaz aza a Th Thea eatr tre e Inc. Inc. (PTI (PTI). ). De Desp spit ite e Lo Lope pez’ z’s s expression of unwillingness, he agreed to supply the lumber necessary for the construction. Lopez further agreed that payment therefore would be on demand and not cash on delivery basis. He delivered the supply on May 17, 1946 up to Dec. 4 of the same year. The total cost of lumber delivered amounted to P62, 255.85. Lopez was paid only P20, 848.50 thus leaving a balance of P41, 771.35. As Lopez was pressing for the payment, Belarmino Rustia, the president of the corporation, promised to obtain a bank loan by mortgaging the properties of the Plaza Theatre, out of which said amount of  P41, 771.35to would satisfied, and to which a ssurance assurance Lopez had to Still unable pay, be Vicente Orosa execute a “deed of assignment” of accede. his 420 shares of stocks at P100 per share, all due to Lopez’s persistent demand. Since the obligation is still unsettled Lopez filed a complaint with the Court of  First Instance of Batangas which ruled under his favor, making Orosa and PTI, jointly and severally liable for the remaining amount. Hence this petition. ISSUE/S: 1. Whether or not the lien for the value of the material attaches to the building alone and does not extend to the land. 2. Wheth Whether er or not the Cou Court rt of First Inst Instance ance and Cour Courtt of Appeals er erred red in prov provid idin ing g the the ma mate teri rial al ma man’ n’s s cl clai aim m su supe peri rior or to the the mo mort rtgag gage e executed in favor of the surety company not only on the building but also on the land. HOLDING & RATIO DECIDENDI:  YES, THE LIEN IN FAVOR OF APPELLANT FOR THE UNPAID VALUE OF THE TH E LU LUM MBE BER R US USED ED IN TH THE E CO CON NST STRU RUCT CTIO ION N OF TH THE E BU BUIL ILDI DIN NG ATTACHES ONLY TO SAID STRUCTURE AND TO NO OTHER PROPERTY  OF THE OBLIGOR. A close examination of the provision of the Civil Code particularly Article 1923, invoked by appellant reveals that the law gives preference to unregistered refectionary credits only with respect to the real esta es tate te up upon on wh whic ich h the the re refe fect ctio ion n or wo work rk wa was s ma made de.. Th This is be bein ing g so so,, the the inevitable conclusion must be that the lien so created attaches merely to the immovable property for the construction or repair of which the obligation was incurred. A building is an immovable property, irrespective irrespective of whether or not said structure and the land on which it is adhered to belong to the same owner. Considering thuswhich arrived, material could be charged only tothe theconclusion building for thethe credit was man's made lien or which

 

received the benefit of refection. The lower court did not err in holding that the interest of the mortgagee over the land is superior and cannot be made subject to the said material man's lien. Wherefore, and on the strength of the foregoing considerations, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed.