ANTONIA BICERRA, DOMINGO BICERRA, BERNARDO BICERRA, CAYETANO BICERRA, LINDA BICERRA, PIO BICERRA, AND EUFRICINA BICERRA, PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. TOMASA TENEZA AND BENJAMI…

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
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 properly, 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.)^*

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 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 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.

---

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