Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 24 views

    Bicerra vs. Teneza

    Uploaded by

    Lorenzo Hammer
    The Bicerras owned a house worth P200,000 that was built on land they owned in Lagangilang, Abra. In January 1957, the Tenezas forcibly demolished the house, claiming ownership. The Bicerras filed a complaint seeking damages of P800 for the destruction of the house. The court of first instance dismissed the case, saying it did not have jurisdiction. The issue is whether the case involves a title to real property that would give the court of first instance jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that while a house is normally considered real property, once demolished it loses that status, making this a case about damages rather than title to land. Therefore, the court of first instance properly had

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Bicerra vs. Teneza

    Uploaded by

    Lorenzo Hammer
    24 views1 page
    The Bicerras owned a house worth P200,000 that was built on land they owned in Lagangilang, Abra. In January 1957, the Tenezas forcibly demolished the house, claiming ownership. The Bicerras filed a complaint seeking damages of P800 for the destruction of the house. The court of first instance dismissed the case, saying it did not have jurisdiction. The issue is whether the case involves a title to real property that would give the court of first instance jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that while a house is normally considered real property, once demolished it loses that status, making this a case about damages rather than title to land. Therefore, the court of first instance properly had

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Original Title

    weer

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Bicerras owned a house worth P200,000 that was built on land they owned in Lagangilang, Abra. In January 1957, the Tenezas forcibly demolished the house, claiming ownership. The Bicerras filed a complaint seeking damages of P800 for the destruction of the house. The court of first instance dismissed the case, saying it did not have jurisdiction. The issue is whether the case involves a title to real property that would give the court of first instance jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that while a house is normally considered real property, once demolished it loses that status, making this a case about damages rather than title to land. Therefore, the court of first instance properly had

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    24 views1 page

    Bicerra vs. Teneza

    Uploaded by

    Lorenzo Hammer
    The Bicerras owned a house worth P200,000 that was built on land they owned in Lagangilang, Abra. In January 1957, the Tenezas forcibly demolished the house, claiming ownership. The Bicerras filed a complaint seeking damages of P800 for the destruction of the house. The court of first instance dismissed the case, saying it did not have jurisdiction. The issue is whether the case involves a title to real property that would give the court of first instance jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that while a house is normally considered real property, once demolished it loses that status, making this a case about damages rather than title to land. Therefore, the court of first instance properly had

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    BICERRA VS.

    TENEZA

    FACTS:

    The Bicerras were the owners of the house, worth P200.00, built on and owned by them and situated in the
    said municipality Lagangilang. In January 1957, the Tenezas forcibly demolished the house, claiming to be the
    owners thereof. The materials of the house, after it was dismantled, were placed in the custody of the barrio
    lieutenant of the place.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, as appellants contend, and therefore is cognizable by
    the Court of First Instance.

    HELD: Yes, the action involves a real property.

    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.

    You might also like