Punsalan, Jr. v. Vda. de Lacsamana
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Antonio Punsalan, Jr. was the registered owner of a parcel of land in Bamban, Tarlac, which he mortgaged to Philippine National Bank (PNB) Tarlac Branch. Due to non-payment, the property was foreclosed and PNB became the highest bidder, securing title in 1977. In 1974, petitioner constructed a warehouse on the property with PNB's alleged acquiescence and leased it out. On July 26, 1978, PNB executed a Deed of Sale with respondent Remedios Vda. de Lacsamana for the property, which was amended on July 31, 1978, to include the building and improvements. Respondent Lacsamana secured title and separate tax declarations for the land and building. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a suit for "Annulment of Deed of Sale with Damages" against PNB and Lacsamana before the CFI of Rizal, Quezon City, impugning the sale of the building, alleging fraud and violation of the principle against 'pactum commisorium'. Respondent Lacsamana averred lack of cause of action and invoked "accessory follows the principal". Respondent PNB filed a Motion to Dismiss based on improper venue, arguing the warehouse is real property and the action is a real action. Petitioner opposed, claiming it was a personal action for damages. The CFI granted PNB's motion, dismissing the complaint for improper venue. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioner then moved to set the case for pre-trial with respect to respondent Lacsamana, which was also denied as the case was already dismissed. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari, arguing that the respondent Court erred in denying the Motion to Set Case for Pre-trial with respect to respondent Lacsamana, as the case had been dismissed on the ground of improper venue upon motion of co-respondent PNB.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Court erred in denying the Motion to Set Case for Pre-trial with respect to respondent Remedios Vda. de Lacsamana. Whether the action for annulment of deed of sale with damages is a personal action or a real action, and whether the warehouse constructed on the land is considered immovable property.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the respondent Court's Order denying the setting for pre-trial. The petition was denied without prejudice to the refiling of the case by petitioner Antonio Punsalan, Jr. in the proper forum.
Ratio Decidendi
On proceeding against respondent Lacsamana alone: The Court found the petitioner's contention that the case should proceed with respect to respondent Lacsamana untenable. Respondent PNB was deemed an indispensable party, as the validity of the Amended Contract of Sale between PNB and Lacsamana was the core issue. It would be futile to proceed with the case against respondent Lacsamana alone when the validity of the sale involving PNB, the seller, was being questioned and PNB had been dismissed from the case due to improper venue. On the nature of the action and the classification of the warehouse, and the propriety of dismissal for improper venue: The Court held that the warehouse claimed to be owned by the petitioner is an immovable or real property as provided in Article 415(1) of the Civil Code. Buildings are always considered immovable property under the Code, and the fact that parties dealt with it separately from the land does not change its character. Therefore, the action for annulment of sale and claim for damages, being closely intertwined with the issue of ownership of the building, is considered a real action. The prevalent doctrine is that an action for annulment or rescission of a sale of real property, while not directly seeking recovery of title or possession, fundamentally aims to recover said real property. Thus, it is a real action. The Court affirmed that the respondent Court did not err in dismissing the case on the ground of improper venue, as provided by Section 2, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court. This rule mandates that actions affecting title to, or recovery of possession of, real property must be commenced and tried in the province where the property or any part thereof lies. The motion to dismiss on this ground was timely raised by respondent PNB.
Main Doctrine
An action for annulment of sale of a building, which is considered immovable property, is a real action that must be filed in the province where the property lies. The dismissal of the case on the ground of improper venue is proper, and it is futile to proceed against other parties if an indispensable party is not properly impleaded.