Manilva SA (the plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against Almazor Shipping Co (the defendant), claiming a standing amount for repairs to the MY Sheferard. To obtain security, the plaintiff arrested the yacht, stating that it was the property of the defendant. Panay Investments Ltd (Panay) appeared in the process as third-party intervener alleging that it was the real owner of the yacht, denied any obligation towards the plaintiff and applied for the release of the yacht from arrest. The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the legal representative of the defendant had contacted it, requiring repairs and modification to the yacht, and had partially paid for that. It contended that if the ship was later sold to Panay, that was irrelevant to its claim because the yacht was affected to a maritime lien as such credit was associated exclusively to the ship regardless of who the owner is. The first instance Court rejected the motion of Panay. On appeal, the decision was affirmed. Panay recurred the decision in cassation before the Tribunal Supremo/Supreme Court (SC).

Held: The SC affirmed the decision.

The SC stated that Panay did not provide evidence of its ownership over the yacht. What was evident is that the claimed amount falls within the concept contained in art 1.1.l of the International Convention Relating to the Arrest of Sea-Going Ships 1952 (the Arrest Convention 1952), which includes claims for repairs and dock expenses. However, further analysis of the condition of the claimed credits fall outside of the object of the motion. It is irrelevant to consider the nature, extension, and coverage of maritime claims, as ownership of the yacht by Panay was not proven.