Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 17 views

    Plaintiffs-Appellants vs. vs. Defendants-Appellees Agripino A. Brillantes Alberto B. Bravo, Ernesto P. Pariel

    Uploaded by

    Tintin Sumaway
    This document is a Supreme Court of the Philippines decision regarding a case about damages from a demolished house. The Court held that (1) while a house is considered an immovable property, once demolished it loses that classification; (2) the complaint sought damages for the demolished house, not determination of real property title, so it fell under the jurisdiction of the lower court; (3) the order dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction was proper.

    Copyright:

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

    Plaintiffs-Appellants vs. vs. Defendants-Appellees Agripino A. Brillantes Alberto B. Bravo, Ernesto P. Pariel

    Uploaded by

    Tintin Sumaway
    17 views2 pages
    This document is a Supreme Court of the Philippines decision regarding a case about damages from a demolished house. The Court held that (1) while a house is considered an immovable property, once demolished it loses that classification; (2) the complaint sought damages for the demolished house, not determination of real property title, so it fell under the jurisdiction of the lower court; (3) the order dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction was proper.

    Original Title

    3_Bicerra_v._Teneza

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is a Supreme Court of the Philippines decision regarding a case about damages from a demolished house. The Court held that (1) while a house is considered an immovable property, once demolished it loses that classification; (2) the complaint sought damages for the demolished house, not determination of real property title, so it fell under the jurisdiction of the lower court; (3) the order dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction was proper.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    17 views2 pages

    Plaintiffs-Appellants vs. vs. Defendants-Appellees Agripino A. Brillantes Alberto B. Bravo, Ernesto P. Pariel

    Uploaded by

    Tintin Sumaway
    This document is a Supreme Court of the Philippines decision regarding a case about damages from a demolished house. The Court held that (1) while a house is considered an immovable property, once demolished it loses that classification; (2) the complaint sought damages for the demolished house, not determination of real property title, so it fell under the jurisdiction of the lower court; (3) the order dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction was proper.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    EN BANC

    [G.R. 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.

    Agripino A. Brillantes and Alberto B. Bravo, for plaintiff-appellants.


    Ernesto P. Pariel, for defendants-appellees.

    SYLLABUS

    1. JURISDICTION; ACTION FOR RECOVERY OF DAMAGES ARISING FROM


    DEMOLISHED HOUSE; NATURE OF ACTION. — A house, even if situated on land
    belonging to a different owner, is classi ed 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 if
    rst 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 nal judgment
    could be enforceable by execution, but is only incidental to the real cause of action to
    recover damages.

    DECISION

    MAKALINTAL , J : p

    This case is before us on appeal from the order of the Court of First Instance of
    Abra dismissing the complaint led 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 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
    CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
    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 exist, and the
    amount of the demand does not exceed P2,000.00 (Sec. 88 id.) 1
    The dismissal of the complaint was proper. A house is classi ed as immovable
    property by reason of its adherence to the soil on which it is built (Art. 415, par. 1, Civil
    Code). This classi cation 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 ask 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 nal judgment
    could be enforceable by execution, but is only incidental to the real cause of action to
    recover damages.
    The order appealed from is a rmed. 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.

    Footnotes

    1. This amount, cognizable by the Justice Peace Court, has been increased to P5,000 in R.
    A. 2613, enacted August 1, 1959.

    CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

    You might also like