You are on page 1of 2


L-55729 March 28, 1983 FACTS: Punsalan was the owner of a piece of land, which he mortgaged in favor of PNB. Due to his failure to pay, the mortgage was foreclosed and the land was sold in a public auction to which PNB was the highest bidder. On a relevant date, while Punsalan was still the possessor of the land, it secured a permit for the construction of a warehouse. A deed of sale was executed between PNB and Punsalan. This contract was amended to include the warehouse and the improvement thereon. By virtue of these instruments, respondent Lacsamana secured title over the property in her name. Petitioner then sought for the annulment of the deed of sale. Among his allegations was that the bank did not own the building and thus, it should not be included in the said deed. Petitioner’s complaint was dismissed for improper venue. The trial court held that the action being filed in actuality by petitioner is a real action involving his right over a real property. ISSUE: W/N the trial court erred in dismissing the case on the ground of improper venue. W/N the warehouse is an immovable and must be tried in the province where the property lies. HELD: Warehouse claimed to be owned by petitioner is an immovable or real property. Buildings are always immovable under the Code. A building treated separately from the land on which it is 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.

1979. On March 7. and damages with the Regional Trial Court against PBCom. a n d b a r r e l t o T s a i . As security for the loan. Court of Appeals G. s t o c k . In the case at bar. l o c k .R. O n A p r i l 2 3 . HELD: Yes. No. it leased the entire factory premises to petitioner Ruby L. and should reconvey the assets. 1988. On December 15. the true intention of PBCOM and the owner. andt h e c h a t t e l s l o c a t e d t h e r e i n . i s t o t r e a t m a c h i n e r y a n d e q u i p m e n t a s c h a t t e l s . EVERTEX filed a complaint for annulment of sale. a deed of Real and Chattel Mortgage over the lot where its factory stands. reconveyance.00) loan from petitioner Philippine Bank of Communications (PBCom). A s s u m i n g t h a t t h e properties in question are immovable by nature. 1975. 2001.E V E R T E X .On March 16. 1 9 7 9 .P B C o m s o l d t h e f a c t o r y .therefore Tsai acquired no rights over such assets sold to her.000. After April 23. In November 1986. EVERTEX claimed that norights having been transmitted to PBCom over the assets of insolvent EVERTEX. While it is true that the questioned properties appear to be immobile. It has beenheld that an immovable may be considered a personal property if there is a stipulationas when it is used as security in the payment of an obligation where a chattel mortgageis executed over it. October 2. aperusal of the contract of Real and Chattel Mortgage executed by the parties gives acontrary indication. i n c l u d i n g t h e c o n t e s t e d machineries. P B C o m g r a n t e d a s e c o n d l o a n t o EVERTEX. as in the case at bar . 1982. 366 SCRA 324 FACTS: On November 26. respondent Ever Textile Mills. ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE INCLUSION OF THE QUESTIONED PROPERTIES IN THE FORECLOSED PROPERTIES IS PROPER. The loan was secured by a chattel mortgage over personal properties enumerated in a list attached thereto.000. the date of the execution of the second mortgage mentioned above. nothing detracts the parties fromtreating it as chattels to secure an obligation under the principle of estoppel. 120098.Tsai v. Inc. On May 3. 1989. EVERTEX purchased various machines andequipments.U p o n E V E R T E X ' s f a i l u r e t o m e e t i t s o b l i g a t i o n t o P B C o m . t h e l a t t e r c o m m e n c e d extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings against EVERTEX. 1984.PBCom consolidated its ownership over the lot and all the properties in it. (EVERTEX) obtained a three million peso (P3. thefirst public auction was held where petitioner PBCom emerged as the highest bidder and a Certificate of Sale was issued in its favor on the same date. Tsai. EVERTEX executed in favor of PBCom.