Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

G.R. No.

L-55729 March 28, 1983


ANTONIO PUNSALAN, JR., petitioner,
vs.
REMEDIOS DA. DE LA!SAMANA a"# T$E $ONORA%LE JUDGE RODOL&O A. ORTI', respondents.
Benjamin S. Benito & Associates for petitioner.
Expedito Yummul for private respondent.
MELEN!IO-$ERRERA, J.:
The sole issue presented by petitioner for resolution is whether or not respondent Court erred in denying the Motion to Set Case for Pre-trial with respect
to respondent Remedios da. de !acsamana as the case had been dismissed on the ground of improper venue upon motion of co-respondent
Philippine "ational #an$ %P"#&.
't appears that petitioner, (ntonio Punsalan, )r., was the former registered owner of a parcel of land consisting of *+, s-uare meters situated in
#amban, Tarlac. 'n ./0*, petitioner mortgaged said land to respondent P"# %Tarlac #ranch& in the amount of P.,,,,,.,,, but for failure to pay said
amount, the property was foreclosed on 1ecember .0, ./2,. Respondent P"# %Tarlac #ranch& was the highest bidder in said foreclosure proceedings.
3owever, the ban$ secured title thereto only on 1ecember .+, ./22.
'n the meantime, in ./2+, while the properly was still in the alleged possession of petitioner and with the alleged ac-uiescence of respondent P"#
%Tarlac #ranch&, and upon securing a permit from the Municipal Mayor, petitioner constructed a warehouse on said property. Petitioner declared said
warehouse for ta4 purposes for which he was issued Ta4 1eclaration "o. 50./. Petitioner then leased the warehouse to one 3ermogenes Sibal for a
period of ., years starting )anuary ./25.
6n )uly 70, ./28, a 1eed of Sale was e4ecuted between respondent P"# %Tarlac #ranch& and respondent !acsamana over the property. This contract
was amended on )uly *., ./28, particularly to include in the sale, the building and improvement thereon. #y virtue of said instruments, respondent -
!acsamana secured title over the property in her name %TCT "o. .2*2++& as well as separate ta4 declarations for the land and building.
1
6n "ovember 77, ./2/, petitioner commenced suit for 9(nnulment of 1eed of Sale with 1amages9 against herein respondents P"# and !acsamana
before respondent Court of :irst 'nstance of Ri;al, #ranch <<<', =ue;on City, essentially impugning the validity of the sale of the building as embodied
in the (mended 1eed of Sale. 'n this connection, petitioner alleged>
444 444 444
77. That defendant, Philippine "ational #an$, through its #ranch Manager ... by virtue of the re-uest of defendant ... e4ecuted a
document dated )uly *., ./28, entitled (mendment to 1eed of (bsolute Sale ... wherein said defendant ban$ as endor sold to
defendant !acsamana the building owned by the plaintiff under Ta4 1eclaration "o. 50./, notwithstanding the fact that said building
is not owned by the ban$ either by virtue of the public auction sale conducted by the Sheriff and sold to the Philippine "ational #an$
or by virtue of the 1eed of Sale e4ecuted by the ban$ itself in its favor on September 7., ./22 ...?
7*. That said defendant ban$ fraudulently mentioned ... that the sale in its favor should li$ewise have included the building,
notwithstanding no legal basis for the same and despite full $nowledge that the Certificate of Sale e4ecuted by the sheriff in its
favor ... only limited the sale to the land, hence, by selling the building which never became the property of defendant, they have
violated the principle against @pactum commisorium@.
Petitioner prayed that the 1eed of Sale of the building in favor of respondent !acsamana be declared null and void and that damages in the total sum of
P7*,,,,,.,,, more or less, be awarded to him.
2
'n her (nswer filed on March +, ./8,,-respondent !acsamana averred the affirmative defense of lac$ of cause of action in that she was a purchaser for
value and invo$ed the principle in Civil !aw that the 9accessory follows the principal9.
3
6n March .+, ./8,, respondent P"# filed a Motion to 1ismiss on the ground that venue was improperly laid considering that the building was real
property under article +.5 %.& of the "ew Civil Code and therefore section 7%a& of Rule + should apply.
(
6pposing said Motion to 1ismiss, petitioner contended that the action for annulment of deed of sale with damages is in the nature of a personal action,
which see$s to recover not the title nor possession of the property but to compel payment of damages, which is not an action affecting title to real
property.
6n (pril 75, ./8,, respondent Court granted respondent P"#@s Motion to 1ismiss as follows>
(cting upon the @Motion to 1ismiss@ of the defendant Philippine "ational #an$ dated March .*, ./8,, considered against the
plaintiff@s opposition thereto dated (pril ., ./8,, including the reply therewith of said defendant, this Court resolves to 1'SM'SS the
plaintiff@s complaint for improper venue considering that the plaintiff@s complaint which see$s for the declaration as null and void, the
amendment to 1eed of (bsolute Sale e4ecuted by the defendant Philippine "ational #an$ in favor of the defendant Remedios T.
da. de !acsamana, on )uly *., ./28, involves a warehouse allegedly owned and constructed by the plaintiff on the land of the
defendant Philippine "ational #an$ situated in the Municipality of #amban, Province of Tarlac, which warehouse is an immovable
property pursuant to (rticle +.5, "o. . of the "ew Civil Code? and, as such the action of the plaintiff is a real action affecting title to
real property which, under Section 7, Rule + of the "ew Rules of Court, must be tried in the province where the property or any part
thereof lies.
5
'n his Motion for Reconsideration of the aforestated 6rder, petitioner reiterated the argument that the action to annul does not involve ownership or title
to property but is limited to the validity of the deed of sale and emphasi;ed that the case should proceed with or without respondent P"# as respondent
!acsamana had already filed her (nswer to the Complaint and no issue on venue had been raised by the latter.
6n September ., ./8,,.respondent Court denied reconsideration for lac$ of merit.
Petitioner then filed a Motion to Set Case for Pre-trial, in so far as respondent !acsamana was concerned, as the issues had already been Aoined with
the filing of respondent !acsamana@s (nswer.
'n the 6rder of "ovember .,, ./8, respondent Court denied said Motion to Set Case for Pre-trial as the case was already dismissed in the previous
6rders of (pril 75, ./8, and September ., ./8,.
3ence, this Petition for Certiorari, to which we gave due course.
Be affirm respondent Court@s 6rder denying the setting for pre-trial.
The warehouse claimed to be owned by petitioner is an immovable or real property as provided in article +.5%l& of the Civil Code.
)
#uildings are always
immovable under the Code.
7
( 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.
8
Bhile it is true that petitioner does not directly see$ the recovery of title or possession of the property in -uestion, 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 obAective. The prevalent doctrine is that an action for the annulment or rescission of a sale of real property does
not operate to efface the fundamental and prime obAective and nature of the case, which is to recover said real property. 't is a real action.
9
Respondent Court, therefore, did not err in dismissing the case on the ground of improper venue %Section 7, Rule +&
1*
, which was timely raised %Section
., Rule .0&
11
.
Petitioner@s other contention that the case should proceed in so far as respondent !acsamana is concerned as she had already filed an (nswer, which
did not allege improper venue and, therefore, issues had already been Aoined, is li$ewise untenable. Respondent P"# is an indispensable party as the
validity of the (mended Contract of Sale between the former and respondent !acsamana is in issue. 't would, indeed, be futile to proceed with the case
against respondent !acsamana alone.
B3CRC:6RC, the petition is hereby denied without preAudice to the refiling of the case by petitioner (ntonio Punsalan, )r. in the proper forum.
Costs against petitioner.
S6 6R1CRC1.
P+",a-a" Jr. ./. #a D0 Lac/a1a"a

GR L-55729, 28 March 1983


&A!TS2
( land belonging to (ntonio Pun;alan was foreclosed by the Philippine "ational #an$ %P"#& Tarlac, #ranch in failure of the former to pay the mortgaged
fee amounting to P.,,,,,.,,. Since P"# was the highest bidder, the land was awarded to P"#.
'n ./2+, while the property was still in the possession of Pun;alan, Pun;alan constructed a warehouse on the said land by virtue of the permit secured
from the Municipal Mayor of #amban, Tarlac. Subse-uently, in ./28, a contract of sale was entered into by P"# and Remedios da. 1e !acsamana,
who, by virtue of the said sale secured a title over the property involving the warehouse allegedly owned and constructed by the plaintiff.
Pun;alan filed a suit for annulment of the 1eed of Sale with damages against P"# and !acsamana before the Court of :irst 'nstance of Ri;al, #ranch
*., impugning the validity of the sale of the building, re-uesting the same to be declared null and void and that damages in the total sum of P7*,7,,
more or less be awarded to him.
Respondent !acsamana in his answer averred the affirmative defense of lac$ of cause of action contending that she was a purchaser for value, while,
P"# filed a Motion to 1ismiss on the ground of improper venue, invo$ing that the building was a real property under (rticle +.5 of the Civil Code, and
therefore, Section + %a& of the Rules of Court should apply.
Pun;alan filed a Motion for Reconsideration asserting that the action he filed is limited to the annulment of sale and that, it does not involve ownership of
or title to property. 't was denied by the court for lac$ of merit. 3ence, a petition for certiorari was filed by the petitioner.
ISSUE2
Bhether or not the the action is a real action and thus, should be filed in the court where the property is located
$ELD2
Bhile it is true that the petitioner does not directly see$ the recovery of the title or possession of the property in -uestion, 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 petitionerDs primary obAective. The prevalent doctrine is that an action for the annulment or rescission of a sale of real property
does not operate to efface the fundamental and prime obAective and nature of the case, which is to recover said property. 't is a real action. Respondent
Court did not err in dismissing the case on the ground of improper venue under Section .7 Rule + which was timely raised under Section . Rule .0 of
the Rules of Court.