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:

Antonio Punsalan Jr. was the former registered owner of a parcel of land consisting of
340 sqm. wherein the petitioner mortgaged the said land to PNB. However, the property was
foreclosed because of failure to pay the amount. The PNB was the highest bidder in the said
foreclosure proceedings and secured the title on December 14, 1977. On 1974, the petitioner
constructed a warehouse on the said property and issued a Tax declaration. On 1978, a Deed of
sale was executed between PNB and Lacsamana over the property which includes the building
and the improvements thereon. Lacsamana secured title over the property and a separate tax
declarations for the land and building. Petitioner Punsalan filed suit for an “Annulment of Deed
of Sale with Damages” against PNB and Lacsamana. The latter invoked the principle that
“accessory follows the principal.” PNB filed motion to dismiss on the ground that the building
was real property under Art. 415 (1) of the NCC. The respondent court granted respondent
PNB’s motion to dismiss. The petitioner contends that the action for annulment of deed of sale is
the nature of a personal action which seeks to recover not the title nor possession of the property
but to compel payment of damages which is not affecting title of real property.

ISSUE: WON, the respondent court erred in dismissing the complaint?

RULING:

No. The respondent court did not err in dismissing the complaint.

The warehouse claimed to be owned by petitioner is an immovable or real property as

provided in article 415(l) of the Civil 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.

While it is true that petitioner does not directly seek the recovery of title or possession of
the property in question, 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 efface the fundamental and prime objective and nature of the case, which is to recover
said real property. It is a real action.

Therefore, the respondent court did not err in dismissing the complaint.