Lopez V. Orosa Case Digest

Lopez V. Orosa, Jr. and Plaza Theatre Inc.
G.R. No. L-10817-18

Facts: Enrique Lopez, doing business under the trade name of Lopez-Castillo Sawmill, was invited by Vicente Orosa, Jr. to make an investment in the theatre business namely Plaza Theatre Inc. Lopez expressed his unwillingness to invest, however agreed to supply lumber necessary for the construction of the theatre with the assurance that Orosa would be personally liable for any account that the said construction might incur. Lopez was paid only P20, 848.50 instead P62, 255.85 which was the total cost of the materials. Persistent demand from Lopez for the payment of the amount due him caused Orosa to execute an alleged "deed of assignment" of his 420 shares of stock of Plaza Theatre Inc. in favor of the creditor. Lopez filed a complaint with the CFI of Batangas against Orosa and Plaza Theatre Inc. praying that defendants be sentenced to pay him jointly and severally the unpaid balance amounting to P41, 771.35 with legal interest. The lower court held that that defendants Vicente Orosa, Jr., and the Plaza Theatre, Inc., were jointly liable for the unpaid balance of the cost of lumber used in the construction of the building and the plaintiff thus acquired the materialman's lien over the same. Plaintiff tried to secure a modification of the decision in so far as it declared that the obligation of therein defendants was joint instead of solidary, and that the lien did not extend to the land, but same was denied by order the court.

Issue: Whether a materialman's lien for the value of the materials used in the construction of a building attaches to said structure alone and does not extend to the land on which the building is adhered to.

Ruling: Yes. While it is true that generally, real estate connotes the land and the building constructed thereon, it is obvious that the inclusion of the building, separate and distinct from the land, in the enumeration of what may constitute real properties1 could mean only one thing — that a building is by itself an immovable property, a doctrine already pronounced by this Court in the case of Leung Yee vs. Strong Machinery Co., 37 Phil., 644. Moreover, and in view of the absence of any specific provision of law to the contrary, a building is an immovable property, irrespective of whether or not said structure and the land on which it is adhered to belong to the same owner.

A close examination of the provision of the Civil Code invoked by appellant reveals that the law gives preference to unregistered refectionary credits only with respect to the real estate upon which the refection or work was made. This being so, 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. Evidently, therefore, the lien in favor of appellant for the unpaid value of the lumber used in the construction of the building attaches only to said structure and to no other property of the obligors.