Punsalan vs.

Lacsamana, 21 SCRA 331

FACTS:

Punsalan was the owner of a piece of land, which he mortgaged in favor of PNB. Due to hisfailure to pay,
the mortgage was foreclosed and the land was sold in a public auction to whichPNB was the highest bidder.
On a relevant date, while Punsalan was still the possessor of theland, it secured a permit for the construction
of a warehouse. A deed of sale was executedbetween PNB and Punsalan. This contract was amended to
include the warehouse and theimprovement thereon. By virtue of these instruments, respondent
Lacsamana secured title overthe property in her name.

Petitioner then sought for the annulment of the deed of sale. Among his allegations was that thebank did not
own the building and thus, it should not be included in the said deed.

Petitioners complaint was dismissed for improper venue. The trial court held that the actionbeing filed in
actuality by petitioner is a real action involving his right over a real property.

ISSUE:

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 arealways

immovable under the Code. A building treated separately from the land on which it isstood is immovable
property and the mere fact that the parties to a contract seem to have dealtwith it separate and apart from
the land on which it stood in no wise changed its character asimmovable property.