ANTONIO PUNSALAN, JR. v. REMEDIOS VDA.

DE LACSAMANA AND By: Jelica

THE HONORABLE JUDGE RODOLFO A. CORTIZ Topic: Immovable or Real Property and
GR No. L-55729 their categories (Art. 415)
Date: March 28, 1983
Facts
Punsalan owned a 340-square-meter land in Tarlac which he mortgaged to PNB in the amount of P10, 000. Due to his
failure to pay the amount, the property was foreclosed in 1970 and PNB was awarded as the highest bidder in the
foreclosure proceedings. However, PNB was only able to secure the title to the said property in 1977.
In 1974, while the property was still in possession of Punsalan and with the acquiescence of PNB, Punsalan
constructed a warehouse on the property which he leased to Hermogenes Sibal for a period of 10 years starting 1975.
In 1978, a Deed of Sale was executed between PNB and Lacsamana over the property. The contract was later on
amended to include in the sale the building and the improvement on the property.
Punsalan filed a suit for the Annulment of Deed of Sale with Damages against PNB and Lacsamana before the CFI of
Rizal, Quezon City. Punsalan prayed that the Deed of Sale of the building in favor of Lacsamana be declared null and
void and that he be awarded P230, 000 as damages.
PNB filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the venue was improperly laid. The building was considered a real
property thus, Sec. 2(a), Rule 4 of the Rules of Court should apply.
Punsalan opposed the Motion to Dismiss and contended that the action for annulment of deed of sale with damages is
in the nature of a personal action to compel payment of damages and does not affect the title to real property.
CFI granted PNBs motion and dismissed the case due to improper venue considering that the case involved a
warehouse, which is an immovable property pursuant to Art. 415 (1). As such, the case must be tried in the province
where the property is situated (pursuant to Sec. 2(a), Rule 4).
Punsalan filed a Motion for Reconsideration but this was denied by the CFI. He then filed a Motion to Set Case for
Pre-trial in so far as Lacsamana was concerned but this was denied, too. Punsalan filed a Petition for Certiorari before
the SC.

Issue/s
Did the CFI err in dismissing the case on the ground of improper venue?

Ruling

NO.

The warehouse claimed to be owned by Punsalan is an immovable or real property as provided in Art. 415 (1) of the Civil
Code. Buildings are always immovable under the Code. A building treated separately from the land on which it stood is
immovable property and the mere fact that the parties to a contract seem to have dealt with it separate and apart from the land
on which it stood in no wise changed its character as immovable property.

While it is true that Punsalan does not directly seek the recovery of title or possession of the property, his action for annulment
of sale and his claim for damages are closely intertwined with the issue of ownership of the building which, under the law, is
considered immovable property, the recovery of which is Punsalans primary objective. An action for the annulment or
rescission of a sale of real property does not operate to efface the fundamental and prime objective and nature of the case, which
is to recover said real property. It is a real action.

The petition is denied without prejudice to the refiling of the case in the proper forum.
Doctrine Notes