1. Lopez vs * Enrique Lopez is a A close examination of ART. 1923.

With
Orosa resident of Batangas, the provision of the Civil respect to
G.R. Nos. L- doing business under the Code invoked by determinate real
10817-18 trade name of Lopez- appellant reveals that the property and real
February 28, Castelo Sawmill law gives preference to rights of the debtor,
1958 *Orosa dropped at Lopez' unregistered refectionary the following are
house and invited him to credits only with respect preferred:
make an investment in the to the real estate upon
theatre business which the refection or 5. Credits for
* Lopez expressed his work was made. refection, not
unwillingness to invest of entered or recorded,
the same, he agreed to This being so, the with respect to the
supply the lumber inevitable conclusion estate upon which
necessary for the must be that the lien so the refection was
construction of the created attaches merely made, and only with
proposed theatre, and at to the immovable respect to other
Orosa's behest and property for the credits different
assurance that the latter construction or repair of from those
would be personally liable which the obligation was mentioned in four
for any account that the incurred. Evidently, preceding
said construction might therefore, the lien in paragraphs.
incur favor of appellant for the
* As Lopez was pressing unpaid value of the
Orosa for payment of the lumber used in the
remaining unpaid construction of the
obligation, the latter and building attaches only to
Belarmino Rustia, the said structure and to no
president of the other property of the
corporation, promised to obligors. Considering the
obtain a bank loan by conclusion thus arrived
mortgaging the properties at, i.e., that the
of the Plaza Theatre., materialman's lien could
* the corporation already be charged only to the
got a loan for P30,000 building for which the
from the Philippine credit was made or
National Bank with the which received the
Luzon Surety Company as benefit of refection, the
surety, and the corporation lower court was right in,
in turn executed a holding at the interest of
mortgage on the land and the mortgagee over the
building in favor of said land is superior and
company as counter- cannot be made subject
security to the said material
man's lien.