121 SCRA 331



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.


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.