PUNZALAN V. LACSAMANA
Buildings are always treated as immovable or real property under the Code… even if it was dealt with separately from the land upon which it stood
FACTS:
Some land belonging to Antonio Punzalan was foreclosed by the Philippine National Bank Tarlac, Branch in failure of the former to pay the mortgaged fee amounting to P10 grand Since PNB was the highest bidder, the land went to PNB.
Sometime 1974, while the property was still in the possession of Punzalan, Punzalan constructed a warehouse on the said land by virtue of the permit secured from the Municipal Mayor of Bamban, Tarlac. Subsequently, in 1978, a contract of sale was entered into by PNB and Remedios Vda. De Lacsamana, whom in lieu of the said sale secured a title over the property involving the warehouse allegedly owned and constructed by the plaintiff.
Punzalan filed a suit for annulment of the Deed of Sale with damages against PNB and Lacsamana before the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch 31, impugning the validity of the sale of the building, requesting the same to be declared null and void and that damages in the total sum of P23, 200 more or less be awarded to him.
Respondent Lacsamana in his answer averred the affirmative defense of lack of cause of action contending that she was a purchaser for value, while, PNB filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of improper venue, invoking that the building was a real property under Article 415 of the Civil Code, and therefore, Section 4 (a) of the Rules of Court should apply.
Punzalan filed a Motion for Reconsideration asserting that the action he filed is limited to the annulment of sale and that, it does not involved ownership of or title to property but denied by the court for lack of merit. A motion for pre-trial was also set by Punzalan but was also denied by the court invoking that the case was already dismissed.
Hence, a petition for certiorari was filed by the petitioner.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the judgment rendered by the court is proper.
HELD:
While it is true that the petitioner does not directly seek the recovery of the 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 petitioners 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 objective and nature of the case, which is to recover said property. It is a real action. Respondent Court did not err in dismissing the case on the ground of improper venue under Section 12 Rule 4 which was timely raised under Section 1 Rule 16 of the Rules of Court.
Personal Observation: The venue was improperly laid by the petitioner in the case at bar. Such ground was sufficient to render dismissal of the case, as the same is one of the grounds provided for under Rule 16 (c) of the Rules of Court.
The Denial of “Motion to Dismiss” rendered by the court in the instant case is appealable. If such denial constitute grave abuse of discretion on the part of the court , Punzalan may file either Prohibition or Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
