Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2


Lopez v. Lopez is a resident of Batangas doing business under W/N a NO. The inclusion of
Orosa the trade name of Lopez Castelo Sawmill. Orosa Jr. materialmans lien the building,
dropped by Lopez house and invited him to make an for the value of While it is true that real estate connotes the land separate and
Plaza Theatre investment in the theater business known as Plaza the materials and the building constructed thereon, the distinct from the
Building Theatre. Lopez expressed his unwillingness to invest used in the inclusion of the building, separate and land, in the
mortgaged but he did agree to supply the lumber for the construction of a distinct from the land, in the enumeration of enumeration of
construction of the theatre. Lopez agreed that the building attaches what may constitute real properties could what may
payment would be on demand and not cash on to said structure mean only one thing that a building is by constitute real
delivery. Thus, Lopez delivered the lumber and of the alone and does itself an immovable property, a doctrine properties could
total cost of the materials of P62k, Lopez paid only not extend to the already pronounced by this Court in the case mean only one
P20.8k. land on which the of Leung Yee vs. Strong Machinery. Moreover, thing that a
building is and in view of the absence of any specific building is by
Plaza Theatre was erected on a piece of land formerly adhered to provision of law to the contrary, a building is an itself an
owned by Orosa and acquired by the corporation. Since immovable property, irrespective of whether or immovable
Lopez pressed Orosa for the payment, Orosa promised W/N the CA erred not said structure and the land on which it is property
to obtain a bank loan by mortgaging the properties of in not providing adhered to belong to the same owner.
Plaza Theatre. Unknown to Lopez, Orosa had already that the
obtained a loan of 30k from PNB with Luzon Surety materialmans lien A close examination of the provision of the Civil
Company as surety and the corporation in turn is superior to the Code invoked by appellant reveals that the law
executed a mortgage on the land and building in favor mortgage gives preference to unregistered refectionary
of said company as counter security. Due to executed in favor credits only with respect to the real estate upon
registration issues, however, this mortgage did not of surety which the refection or work was made. This being
appear on the OCT of the land. company not only so, the inevitable conclusion must be that the lien
on the building so created attaches merely to the immovable
Persistent demand from Lopez caused Orosa to execute but also on the property for the construction or repair of which
a Deed of Assignment of his 420 shares of stock of land the obligation was incurred. Evidently, therefore,
Plaza Theatre for P42,000 in favor of Lopez. As the the lien in favor of appellant for the unpaid value
obligation remained unsettled, Lopez filed a complaint of the lumber used in the construction of the
with the CFI of Batangas against Orosa and Plaza building attaches only to said structure and to no
Theater praying that defendants be sentenced to pay other property of the obligors.
him jointly and severally the remaining balance of
P41k, with legal interest from the firing of the action
and in case of failure to pay, for defendants to give up
their (1) building and land owned by the corporation or
(2) the shares of stock to be sold at a public auction
so that the proceeds be used to pay off the loan.

As a defense, Orosa claims that the shares of stock

were personal properties accepted by Lopez as direct
security for the debt and therefore, plaintiff was barred
from recovering any deficiency if the proceeds were not
sufficient after sale at the public auction. Meanwhile,

Plaza Theatre contended Orosa bought the materials

out of his own personal account and that it could not be
held jointly and severally liable.

Thus, Lopez acquired a material mans lien over the

construction, though not the land

When Luzon Surety learned that the land was already

registered and that there was a notice filed by Lopez, it
filed a petition for review of the decree with the Land
Registration Court in order to annotate its rights over
the property. Lopez opposed this, asserting that the
amount demanded by him constituted a preferred lien
over the properties and that the surety company was
guilty of negligence when it failed to present an
opposition to the registration of property.

The lower court ruled that Orosa and Plaza

Theatre were JOINTLY LIABLE for the unpaid
balance owed to Lopez and ruled that the lien was
merely confined to the building an DID NOT
extend to the land on which the construction was
made and that plaintiffs lien on the building was
superior to the right of the surety company.

Lopez filed a partial MR regarding the joint liability of

the defendants and the ruling that the lien did not
extend to the land but it was denied. The CA affirmed
the lower courts ruling.