B. H. BERKENKOTTER, , vs.
CU UNJI ENG E HI JOS, to Cu Unjieng e Hijos for an additional loan of
Facts:
The Mabalacat Sugar Co., Inc.,owner of the sugar central
situated in Mabalacat, Pampanga, obtained from the
defendants, Cu Unjieng e Hijos, a loan secured by a Irst
mortgage constituted on two parcels of land "with all its
buildings, improvements, sugar-cane mill, steel railway,
telephone line, apparatus, utensils and whatever forms.
Mabalacat Sugar Co., Inc., decided to increase the
capacity of its sugar central by
buying additional machinery and equipment, so
that instead of milling 1 50 tons daily, it
could produce 250.
In order to carry out this plan, B. A. Green,
president of said corporation, proposed to the
plaintiff, B. H. Berkenkotter, to advance the
necessary amount for the purchase of said
machinery and equipment, promising to reimburse
him as soon as he could obtain an additional loan
from the mortgagees, the herein defendants Cu
Unjieng e Hijos.
With the loan of P25,750 and said credit of
P22,000,the Mabalacat Sugar Co., Inc., purchased
the additional machinery and equipment now
in litigation.
. Green, president of the Mabalacat Sugar Co., Inc.,
applied
P75,000 offering as security the
additional machinery and equipment acquired by
said B. A- but failed to obtain loan.
Hence, this appeal.
Issue:
Whether or not the lower court erred in declaring that the
additional machinery and equipment as improvement
incorporated with the central are
subject to the mortgage deed executed in favor of the
defendants Cu Unjieng e Hijos?
Held:
Decision by the LC is AFFIRMED.
That theinstallation of a machinery and equipment in a
mortgaged sugar central, in lieu of
another of less capacity, for the purpose of carrying out
the industrial functions of the
latter and increasing production, constitutes a permanent
improvement on said sugar
central and subjects said machinery and equipment to the
mortgage constituted
thereon (article 1 877, Civil Code); (2) that the fact that
the purchaser of the new
machinery and equipment has bound himself to the person
supplying him the purchase
money to hold them as security for the payment of the
latter's credit, and to refrain
from mortgaging or otherwise encumbering them does not
alter the permanent
character of the incorporation of said machinery and
equipment with the central; and
(3) that the sale of the machinery and equipment in
question by the purchaser who was
supplied the money, after the incorporation thereof with
the mortgaged sugar central,
does not vest the creditor with ownership of said
machinery and equipment but simply
with the right of redemption.

Lopez vs Orosa
Facts:
Petitioner Lopez is a resident of Balayan Batangas, doing
business under the trade name of Lopez- Castello sawmill.
Respondent Orosa is also a resident of the same province,
dropped at lopez house and invited him to make an
investment in theater business.
Orosa and family were organizing a corporation to be
known as Plaza Theatre, Inc.
Petitioner lopez expressed his unwillingness to invest on the
same, he agreed to supply the lumber necessary for the
construction of the proposed theater.
Pursuant to the verbal agreement, petitioner Lopez
delivered the lumber which was used for the construction
of the Plaza.
As petitioner was pressing the respondent for payment of
the remaining unpaid obligation, the president of the
corporation, promised to obtain a bank loan by mortgaging
the properties of the Plaza Theater.
Due to the persistent demand from Lopez for the payment
of amount due him caused the respondent Orosa to execute
an alleged deed of assignment 420 shares at P 100 per
share.
Petitioner filed a complaint with the CFI of Batangas against
the respondent and the corporation praying that the
defendants be sentenced to pay him jointly and severally
and in case of default, the building and land covered by the
corporation be sold at public auction and proceeds thereof
be applied to said indebtedness.
Respondent Orosa argued that the land on which the movie
house was constructed was not charged with a lien to
secure payment of the unpaid obligation.
Respondent Plaza Theater argued that the building
materials delivered to Orosa were under his personal
account.
Issue: WON the materialmans lien for the value of the materials
used in the construction of the building attaches to structure alone?
Held:
PROPERTY; REAL ESTATE; MATERIALMAN'S
LIEN; DOES NOT EXTEND TO
THE LAND; BUILDING SEPARATE AND DISTINCT
FROM LAND. Appellant's 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 of what
constitute real properties (Art. 41 5 of the New Civil Code
[Art. 334 of the old]) could
mean only one thing, that a building is by itself an
immovable property. (Leung Yee vs.
Strong Machinery Co., 37 Phil. 644.)

G AVI NO A. TUMALAD and G ENEROSA R. TUMALAD,

plaintiffsappellees, vs. ALBERTA VI CENCI O and EMI LI ANO SI
MEON ,

defendants-appellants

Facts:

Defendants-appellants executed a
chattel mortgage 1 in favor of plaintiffs-appellees
over their house of strong materials
located at No. 550 Int. 3, Quezon Boulevard,
Quiapo, Manila, over Lot No. 6-B and 7-B,
Block No. 2554, which were being rented from
Madrigal & Company, Inc.