LOPEZ v OROSA, JR., PLAZA THEATRE, INC.

The Building is an immovable by itself, separate and distinct from the land from which it is attached.

FACTS:

Orosa invited Lopez to invest with him in building a theatre. Lopez supplied wood for the construction of the said theatre. The materials totaled 62k but Orosa was only able to pay 20k thus leaving a balance of almost 42k. Later on respondents acquired a bank loan of 30k, wherein Luzon Surety Company as their surety and the land and buildings as mortgages. Petitioner sued to collect the unpaid materials and was able to get a judgment against the respondents making them jointly liable to pay the remaining amount. Also, he was able to obtain a materialman’s lien on the building of the theatre. The stocks amounting to 42k shall be sold in public auction in case the respondents default. Petitioner wasn’t happy because he also wanted a lien on the land, urging that the judgment lien should include it since the building and the land are inseparable.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the building and the land are inseperable and W/N petitioner can obtain a lien on the land as well?

RULING:

NO to both! The contention that the lien executed in favor of the furnisher of the materials used for the construction, repair or refection of a building is also extended to land on which the construction was made is without merit, because 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 (in the CC) of what may constitute real properties could mean only one thing- that a building is by itself an immovable property.

The preference to unregistered lien is only with respect to the real estate upon which the refection or work was made. The materialman’s lien could be charged only to the building for which the credit was made or which received the benefit of refection.