G.R. No. L-55729 March 28, 1983
FACTS:
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.
ISSUE:
W/N the trial court erred in dismissing the case on the ground of improper venue.
W/N the warehouse is an immovable and must be tried in the province where the property lies.
HELD:
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment