Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. L-55729 March 28, 1983
ANTONIO PUNSALAN, JR., petitioner,
vs. REMEIOS !A. E LACSAMANA a"# T$E $ONORA%LE JUGE ROOL&O
A. ORTI', respondents.
MELENCIO-$ERRERA, J.:
The sole issue presented b petitioner for resolution is !hether or not respondent
"ourt erred in denin# the Motion to Set "ase for Pre$trial !ith respect to respondent
Re%edios Vda. de &acsa%ana as the case had been dis%issed on the #round of
i%proper venue upon %otion of co$respondent Philippine National 'an( )PN'*.
It appears that petitioner, +ntonio Punsalan, ,r., !as the for%er re#istered o!ner of a
parcel of land consistin# of -./ s0uare %eters situated in 'a%ban, Tarlac. In 123-,
petitioner %ort#a#ed said land to respondent PN' )Tarlac 'ranch* in the a%ount of
P1/,///.//, but for failure to pa said a%ount, the propert !as foreclosed on
Dece%ber 13, 124/. Respondent PN' )Tarlac 'ranch* !as the hi#hest bidder in said
foreclosure proceedin#s. 5o!ever, the ban( secured title thereto onl on Dece%ber
1., 1244.
In the %eanti%e, in 124., !hile the properl !as still in the alle#ed possession of
petitioner and !ith the alle#ed ac0uiescence of respondent PN' )Tarlac 'ranch*, and
upon securin# a per%it fro% the Municipal Maor, petitioner constructed a !arehouse
on said propert. Petitioner declared said !arehouse for ta6 purposes for !hich he
!as issued Ta6 Declaration No. 7312. Petitioner then leased the !arehouse to one
5er%o#enes Sibal for a period of 1/ ears startin# ,anuar 1247.
On ,ul 83, 1249, a Deed of Sale !as e6ecuted bet!een respondent PN' )Tarlac
'ranch* and respondent &acsa%ana over the propert. This contract !as a%ended
on ,ul -1, 1249, particularl to include in the sale, the buildin# and i%prove%ent
thereon. ' virtue of said instru%ents, respondent $ &acsa%ana secured title over the
propert in her na%e )T"T No. 14-4..* as !ell as separate ta6 declarations for the
land and buildin#.
1
On Nove%ber 88, 1242, petitioner co%%enced suit for :+nnul%ent of Deed of Sale
!ith Da%a#es: a#ainst herein respondents PN' and &acsa%ana before respondent
"ourt of First Instance of Ri;al, 'ranch <<<I, =ue;on "it, essentiall i%pu#nin# the
validit of the sale of the buildin# as e%bodied in the +%ended Deed of Sale. In this
connection, petitioner alle#ed>
666 666 666
88. That defendant, Philippine National 'an(, throu#h its 'ranch
Mana#er ... b virtue of the re0uest of defendant ... e6ecuted a
docu%ent dated ,ul -1, 1249, entitled +%end%ent to Deed of
+bsolute Sale ... !herein said defendant ban( as Vendor sold to
defendant &acsa%ana the buildin# o!ned b the plaintiff under Ta6
Declaration No. 7312, not!ithstandin# the fact that said buildin# is
not o!ned b the ban( either b virtue of the public auction sale
conducted b the Sheriff and sold to the Philippine National 'an( or
b virtue of the Deed of Sale e6ecuted b the ban( itself in its favor
on Septe%ber 81, 1244 ...?
8-. That said defendant ban( fraudulentl %entioned ... that the
sale in its favor should li(e!ise have included the buildin#,
not!ithstandin# no le#al basis for the sa%e and despite full
(no!led#e that the "ertificate of Sale e6ecuted b the sheriff in its
favor ... onl li%ited the sale to the land, hence, b sellin# the
buildin# !hich never beca%e the propert of defendant, the have
violated the principle a#ainst @pactu% co%%isoriu%@.
Petitioner praed that the Deed of Sale of the buildin# in favor of respondent
&acsa%ana be declared null and void and that da%a#es in the total su% of
P8-/,///.//, %ore or less, be a!arded to hi%.
2
In her +ns!er filed on March ., 129/,$respondent &acsa%ana averred the affir%ative
defense of lac( of cause of action in that she !as a purchaser for value and invo(ed
the principle in "ivil &a! that the :accessor follo!s the principal:.
3
On March 1., 129/, respondent PN' filed a Motion to Dis%iss on the #round that
venue !as i%properl laid considerin# that the buildin# !as real propert under
article .17 )1* of the Ne! "ivil "ode and therefore section 8)a* of Rule . should
appl.
(
Opposin# said Motion to Dis%iss, petitioner contended that the action for annul%ent
of deed of sale !ith da%a#es is in the nature of a personal action, !hich see(s to
recover not the title nor possession of the propert but to co%pel pa%ent of
da%a#es, !hich is not an action affectin# title to real propert.
On +pril 87, 129/, respondent "ourt #ranted respondent PN'@s Motion to Dis%iss as
follo!s>
+ctin# upon the @Motion to Dis%iss@ of the defendant Philippine
National 'an( dated March 1-, 129/, considered a#ainst the
plaintiff@s opposition thereto dated +pril 1, 129/, includin# the repl
there!ith of said defendant, this "ourt resolves to DISMISS the
plaintiff@s co%plaint for i%proper venue considerin# that the
plaintiff@s co%plaint !hich see(s for the declaration as null and void,
the a%end%ent to Deed of +bsolute Sale e6ecuted b the
defendant Philippine National 'an( in favor of the defendant
Re%edios T. Vda. de &acsa%ana, on ,ul -1, 1249, involves a
!arehouse alle#edl o!ned and constructed b the plaintiff on the
land of the defendant Philippine National 'an( situated in the
Municipalit of 'a%ban, Province of Tarlac, !hich !arehouse is an
i%%ovable propert pursuant to +rticle .17, No. 1 of the Ne! "ivil
"ode? and, as such the action of the plaintiff is a real action
affectin# title to real propert !hich, under Section 8, Rule . of the
Ne! Rules of "ourt, %ust be tried in the province !here the
propert or an part thereof lies.
5
In his Motion for Reconsideration of the aforestated Order, petitioner reiterated the
ar#u%ent that the action to annul does not involve o!nership or title to propert but is
li%ited to the validit of the deed of sale and e%phasi;ed that the case should
proceed !ith or !ithout respondent PN' as respondent &acsa%ana had alread filed
her +ns!er to the "o%plaint and no issue on venue had been raised b the latter.
On Septe%ber 1, 129/,.respondent "ourt denied reconsideration for lac( of %erit.
Petitioner then filed a Motion to Set "ase for Pre$trial, in so far as respondent
&acsa%ana !as concerned, as the issues had alread been Aoined !ith the filin# of
respondent &acsa%ana@s +ns!er.
In the Order of Nove%ber 1/, 129/ respondent "ourt denied said Motion to Set "ase
for Pre$trial as the case !as alread dis%issed in the previous Orders of +pril 87,
129/ and Septe%ber 1, 129/.
5ence, this Petition for "ertiorari, to !hich !e #ave due course.
Be affir% respondent "ourt@s Order denin# the settin# for pre$trial.
The !arehouse clai%ed to be o!ned b petitioner is an i%%ovable or real propert as
provided in article .17)l* of the "ivil "ode.
)
'uildin#s are al!as i%%ovable under
the "ode.
7
+ buildin# treated separatel fro% the land on !hich it stood is i%%ovable
propert and the %ere fact that the parties to a contract see% to have dealt !ith it
separate and apart fro% the land on !hich it stood in no !ise chan#ed its character
as i%%ovable propert.
8
Bhile it is true that petitioner does not directl see( the recover of title or possession
of the propert in 0uestion, his action for annul%ent of sale and his clai% for da%a#es
are closel intert!ined !ith the issue of o!nership of the buildin# !hich, under the
la!, is considered i%%ovable propert, the recover of !hich is petitioner@s pri%ar
obAective. The prevalent doctrine is that an action for the annul%ent or rescission of a
sale of real propert does not operate to efface the funda%ental and pri%e obAective
and nature of the case, !hich is to recover said real propert. It is a real action.
9
Respondent "ourt, therefore, did not err in dis%issin# the case on the #round of
i%proper venue )Section 8, Rule .*
1*
, !hich !as ti%el raised )Section 1, Rule 13*
11
.
Petitioner@s other contention that the case should proceed in so far as respondent
&acsa%ana is concerned as she had alread filed an +ns!er, !hich did not alle#e
i%proper venue and, therefore, issues had alread been Aoined, is li(e!ise untenable.
Respondent PN' is an indispensable part as the validit of the +%ended "ontract of
Sale bet!een the for%er and respondent &acsa%ana is in issue. It !ould, indeed, be
futile to proceed !ith the case a#ainst respondent &acsa%ana alone.
B5CRCFORC, the petition is hereb denied !ithout preAudice to the refilin# of the
case b petitioner +ntonio Punsalan, ,r. in the proper foru%.
"osts a#ainst petitioner.
SO ORDCRCD.
Teehankee (Chairman), Plana, Vasquez, Relova and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.
&oo+"o+,-
1 C6hibits :R: and :D:, Ori#inal Records.
8 pp. 14$81, Rollo.
- pp, 88$87, Iid.
. pp. 83 $89, Iid.
7 p. -7, Ibid.
3 +RT. .17. The follo!in# are i%%ovable propert. )1* &and,
buildin#s, roads and constructions of all (inds adhered to the soil?
6 6 6
4 - Manresa 8/.
9 &eun# Eee vs. Stron# Machiner "o., -4 Phil. 3.. )1219*.
2 Favieres vs. Sanche;, et aG. 2. Phil. 43/, )127.*? Torres vs. ,.M.
Tuason H "o., 18 S"R+ 14. )123.*? De ,esus vs. "oloso, 1 S"R+
848 )1231*
1/ Section 8. Venue in Courts o! "irst Instance.I+ctions affectin#
title, to or for recover of possession or for partition or
conde%nation of, or foreclosure of %ort#a#e on, real propert, shall
be co%%enced and tried in the province !here the propert or an
part thereof &ies )Rule ., Rules of "ourt*.
11 Section 1. Grounds.I Bithin the ti%e for pleadin# a %otion to
dis%iss the action %a be %ade on an of the follo!in# #rounds>
6 6 6
c* That venue is i%properl laid? )Rule 13*
Haystack: Punsalan v. vda. De Lacsamana (GR L-55729, 28 March 1983)
Punsalan v. vda. De Lacsamana
[G.R. No. L-55729. March 28, 1983.]
First Division, Melencio-Herrera (J): 5 concur
Facts: Antonio Punsalan, Jr., was the former registered owner of a parcel of land
consisting of 340 m2 situated in Bamban, Tarlac. In 1963, Punsalan mortgaged the
land to PNB (Tarlac Branch) for P10,000.00, but for failure to pay said amount, the
property was foreclosed on 16 December 1970. PNB (Tarlac Branch) was the highest
bidder in said foreclosure proceedings. However, the bank secured title thereto only
on 14 December 1977. In the meantime, in 1974, while the property was still in the
alleged possession of Punsalan and with the alleged acquiescence of PNB (Tarlac
Branch), and upon securing a permit from the Municipal Mayor, Punsalan constructed
a warehouse on said property. Punsalan declared said warehouse for tax purposes
for which he was issued Tax Declaration 5619. Punsalan then leased the warehouse
to one Hermogenes Sibal for a period of 10 years starting January 1975.
On 26 July 1978, a Deed of Sale was executed between PNB (Tarlac Branch) and
Lacsamana over the property. This contract was amended on 31 July 1978,
particularly to include in the sale, the building and improvement thereon. By virtue of
said instruments, Lacsamana secured title over the property in her name (TCT
173744) as well as separate tax declarations for the land and building.
On 22 November 1979, Punsalan commenced suit for "Annulment of Deed of Sale
with Damages" against PNB and Lacsamana before the CFI Rizal, Branch XXXI,
Quezon City, essentially impugning the validity of the sale of the building as embodied
in the Amended Deed of Sale. The CFI dismissed the case on the ground of improper
venue on 25 April 1980, fnding that the warehouse allegedly owned and constructed
by the plaintif on the land of the PNB situated in the Municipality of Bamban, Province
of Tarlac, which warehouse is an immovable property pursuant to Article 415 (1) of
the New Civil Code; and, as such the action of the plaintif is a real action afecting
title to real property which, under Section 2, Rule 4 of the New Rules of Court, must
be tried in the province where the property or any part thereof lies. Punsalan fled a
Motion for Reconsideration of the Order, which the Court denied on 1 September
1980. Hence, the petition for Certiorari.
The Supreme Court denied the petition without prejudice to the reflling of the case by
Punsalan in the proper forum; with cost against the petitioner.
1. Buildings are always immovable under the 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.
2. Annulment or rescission of sale of real property does not operate to eface
the objective of recovering real property
Even if one 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 petitioner's primary objective. The prevalent doctrine
is that an action for the annulment or rescission of a sale of real property does not
operate to eface the fundamental and prime objective and nature of the case, which
is to recover said real property. It is a real action.
3. Lack of allegation of improper venue does not warrant case to proceed as it
also require other indispensable party
The contention that the case should proceed as the respondent failed to allege
improper venue and, therefore, issues had already been joined, is untenable. An
indispensable party exist besides the parties in the Amended Contract of Sale, the
validity of which is being questioned. It would be futile to proceed with the case
against one respondent alone.