This case involved a dispute regarding the secured claims over the ship Oyambre (previously named Atlántico​) of the judicial administrator of the shipowner, Naviera de Cantabria SA (the appellant) and the mortgagee bank, Banco de Crédito Industrial SA (respondent).

When Naviera de Cantabria SA defaulted on its loan, the respondent bank commenced summary judicial proceedings pursuant to art 131 of the Mortgage Law, requesting the possession and administration of the vessel, which was granted by the Court. After the judgment was handed down, it was found that the appellant administrator had frozen the proceeds and income of the ship and had suspended payments to creditors. The respondent bank argued that its mortgage and, consequently, its right to own and administer the vessel and to receive the proceeds and earnings of the same, should be preferred to the claim of rights of the appellant administrator and to its administration, and sought a declaration that the respondent bank should receive all the proceeds and earnings of the vessel from 11 April 1985, when it was granted possession and interim administration. The appellant administrator opposed this application, arguing that the order dated 30 September 1985 regarding the bank's third-party claim of better rights should be set aside. The Judge of First Instance of Santander dismissed the respondent bank's application. The respondent bank appealed to the Civil Chamber of the Territorial Court of Burgos, which partially upheld its appeal in declaring that the respondent bank's right to the proceeds and income of the vessel from the date of the order of 30 September 1985, when the claim was admitted, should be preferred to that of the appellant administrator. The appellant administrator appealed to the Supreme Court. Among other things, the appellant argued that the Civil Chamber of the Territorial Court of Burgos had failed to take into account the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to Maritime Liens and Mortgages 1926 (MLM Convention 1926).

Held: Cassation appeal dismissed. Judgment of the Civil Chamber of the Territorial Court of Burgos confirmed.

The appellant administrator maintains that its claim of rights is protected by the MLM Convention 1926, which was ratified by Spain on 2 June 1930. Article 2 of the Convention provides for maritime liens on a vessel, on the freight for the voyage during which the claim giving rise to the lien arises, and on the accessories of the vessel and freight accrued since the commencement of the voyage, including '[l]aw costs due to the State, and expenses incurred in the common interest of the creditors in order to preserve the vessel or to procure its sale and the distribution of the proceeds of sale'. These maritime liens rank ahead of even naval mortgages. The appellant argues that, as the suspension of payments to creditors is an expense incurred in the general interest, even if the mortgage extends to the proceeds and earnings of the vessel, that right must yield to a maritime lien in favour of the common benefit. This maritime lien is the product of international collaboration aiming to maintain uniform criteria regarding maritime commerce. Leaving aside the problem of whether or not it applies to legal relations among nationals of a signatory State - Spain in this case - it has to apply to the situations contemplated and for which the Convention was agreed, among which the credits arising from the suspension of payments by the company Naviera de Cantabria SA are not found.