G.R. No.

L-55729 March 28, 1983

ANTONIO PUNSALAN, JR., petitioner,

vs.

REMEDIOS VDA. DE LACSAMANA and THE HONORABLE JUDGE RODOLFO A. ORTIZ, respondents.

Facts:

Petitioner was a former owner of a parcel of land located in Bamban, Tarlac. It was mortgaged to PNB but
was foreclosed on December 1970 in favor of the bank for petitioner’s failure to pay the amount. While
the property was still in the alleged possession of petitioner, and with a mayor’s permit, he constructed a
warehouse on the said property and leased it to Sibal for ten years. On July 1978, a Deed of Sale was
executed between PNB and Lacsamana which included the property and all its buildings and
improvements. Lacsamana secured the title of the property in her name.

Petitioner now impugned the validity of the sale against respondents in the Court of First Instance of
Rizal. PNB filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the venue was improperly laid considering that it
was a real property. Petitioner contended that his was a personal action and does not affect title to real
property. On April 1980, the CFI granted PNB’s motion, and that the plaintiff’s action must be tried in the
province where the real property lies. In his motion for reconsideration, petitioner emphasized that the
case should proceed with or without PNB since Lacsamana already filed an answer and did not raise
venue as an issue.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent Court erred in denying the Motion to Set Case for Pre-trial with respect to
respondent Remedios Vda. de Lacsamana as the case had been dismissed on the ground of improper
venue upon motion of co-respondent Philippine National Bank.

Ruling:

The SC affirms the order of CFI in denying the setting for a Pre-trial. The warehouse is considered an
immovable property as provided in Art. 451(I) of the Civil Code. Even if it is treated separately from the
land it stood in, it does not change its character as an immovable property. Petitioner’s action for
annulment of sale and claim for damages is closely intertwined with the issue of ownership of the
building. 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 objective and nature of the case, which is to
recover said real property. It is a real action.

Petitioner’s contention that the case should proceed without PNB is untenable. PNB is an indispensable
party where the Contract of Sale with Lacsamana is in issue.

Petition is denied without prejudice to the refiling of the case by petitioner in the proper forum.