Scribd
Upload
87 views3 pages

Bicerra V Teneza

Uploaded by

Carrie Anne Garcia
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
87 views3 pages

Bicerra V Teneza

Uploaded by

Carrie Anne Garcia
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

9/5/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

VOL. 6, NOVEMBER 29, 1962 649


Bicerra vs. Teneza

No. L-16218. November 29, 1962.

ANTONIA BICERRA,DOMINGO BICERRA,BERNARDO BICERRA,


CAYETANO BICERRA,LINDA BICERRA,PIO BICERRA and EUFRICINA
BICERRA, plaintiffs-appellants,  vs.  TOMASA TENEZA and BENJAMIN
BARBOSA, defendants-appellees.

Jurisdiction; Action for recovery of damages arising from demolished house; Nature


of Action.—A house, even if situated or land belonging to a different owner, is classified
as immovable property. However, once it is demolished, its character as an immovable
ceases. Hence, an action for recovery of damages in connection with the demolished
house, does not involve title to real property, and falls under the jurisdiction of the
justice of the peace court or the court of first instance, depending on the amount of the
demand. Although the plaintiffs ask that they be declared owners of the dismantled
house and/or of the materials, such declaration in no wise constitutes the relief itself
which if granted by final judgment could be enforceable by execution, but is only
incidental to the real cause of action to recover damages.

APPEAL from an order of the Court of First Instance


650

650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Bicerra vs. Teneza

of Abra.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
     Agripino Brillantes and Alberto B. Bravo for plaintiffs-appellants.
     Ernesto Parol for defendants-appellees.

MAKALINTAL, J.:

This case is before us on appeal from the order of the Court of First Instance of
Abra dismissing the complaint filed by appellants, upon motion of defendants-
appellees on the ground that the action was within the exclusive (original)
jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace Court of Lagangilang, of the same
province.
The complaint alleges in substance that appellants were the owners of the
house, worth P200.00, built on a lot owned by them and situated in the said
municipality of Lagangilang; that sometime in January 1957 appellees forcibly
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745c6182c7fdddf2f7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/3
9/5/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

demolished the house, claiming to be the owners thereof; that the materials of
the house, after it was dismantled, were placed in the custody of the barrio
lieutenant of the place; and that as a result of appellees’ refusal to restore the
house or to deliver the materials to appellants the latter have suffered actual
damages in the amount of P200.00, plus moral and consequential damages in
the amount of P600.00. The relief prayed for is that “the plaintiffs be declared
the owners of the house in question and/or the materials that resulted in (sic)
its dismantling; (and) that the defendants be ordered to pay the sum of
P200.00, plus P600.00 as damages, and the costs.”
The issue posed by the parties in this appeal is whether the action involves
title to real property, as appellants contend, and therefore is cognizable by the
Court of First Instance (Sec. 44, par. [b], R.A. 296, as amended), or whether it
pertains to the jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace Court, as stated in the
order appealed from, since there is no real property litigated, the house having
ceased to 1
exist, and the amount of the demand does not exceed P2,000.00 (Sec.
88, id.).

_______________
1 This amount, cognizable by the Justice of the Peace Court, has been increased to P5,000 in

R.A. 2613, enacted August 1, 1959.

651

VOL. 6, NOVEMBER 29, 1962 651


People vs. Paulin

The dismissal of the complaint was proper. A house is classified as immovable


property by reason of its adherence to the soil on which it is built (Art. 415, par.
1, Civil Code). This classification holds true regardless of the fact that the
house may be situated on land belonging to a different owner. But once the
house is demolished, as in this case, it ceases to exist as such and hence its
character as an immovable likewise ceases. It should be noted that the
complaint here is for recovery of damages. This is the only positive relief
prayed for by appellants. To be sure, they also asked that they be declared
owners of the dismantled house and/or of the materials. However, such
declaration in no wise constitutes the relief itself which if granted by final
judgment could be enforceable by execution, but is only incidental to the real
cause of action to recover damages.
The order appealed from is affirmed. The appeal having been admitted
in forma pauperis, no costs are adjudged.

          Bengzon, C.J.,  Padilla,  Bautista Angelo,  Labrador,Concepcion,  Reyes,


J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon and Regala, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed.

Note.—Buildings are considered immovable provided they are substantially


adhered to the land (Article 415, No. 1, Civil Code), whether the building is
built on one’s own land or on rented land. It is obvious that the inclusion of the
word “building” as a separate and distinct enumeration from the land in Article
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745c6182c7fdddf2f7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/3
9/5/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

415 of the Civil Code can only mean that a building is by itself an immovable
property (Lopez vs. Oroso, Jr., et al.,  L-40817-1.8, Feb. 28, 1958;  Associated
Insurance & Surety Co., Inc. v. lya, et al.,  L-10837-38, May 30, 1958). The
nature of a building does not depend on the way the parties deal with it (Leung
Yee v. Strong Machinery Co., 37 Phil. 644).

________________

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745c6182c7fdddf2f7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/3

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy