Bicerra v.

Teneza
[G.R. No. L-16218. November 29, 1962.]
En Banc, Makalintal (J): 10 concur.

FACTS:

The Bicerras are supposedly the owners of the house worth P200, built on a lot owned by them in
Lagangilang, Abra; which the Tenezas forcibly demolished in January 1957, claiming to be the owners
thereof. The materials of the house were placed in the custody of the barrio lieutenant. The Bicerras
filed a complaint claiming actual damages of P200, moral and consequential damages amounting to
P600, and the costs. The CFI Abra dismissed the complaint claiming that the action was within the
exclusive (original) jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace Court of Lagangilang, Abra.

ISSUE:
W/N the action involves title to real property.
W/N the dismissal of the complaint was proper.

HELD:
The Supreme Court affirmed the order appealed. Having been admitted in forma pauperis, no costs were
adjudged.

1. House is immovable property even if situated on land belonging to a different owner; Exception, when
demolished
A house is classified as immovable property by reason of its adherence to the soil on which it is built
(Article 415, paragraph 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.

2. Recovery of damages not exceeding P2,000 and involving no real property belong to the Justice of the
Peace Court
The complaint is for recovery of damages, the only positive relief prayed for. Further, a declaration of
being the owners of the dismantled house and/or of the materials 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. As this is a case for recovery of damages where the demand does
not exceed PhP 2,000 and that there is no real property litigated as the house has ceased to exist, the
case is within the jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace Court (as per Section 88, RA 296 as amended)
and not the CFI (Section 44, id.)