Scribd
Upload
221 views1 page

Bicera V Teneza

The Bicerras owned a house worth P200 that was built on land owned by Tomasa Teneza and Benjamin Barbosa. In 1957, Teneza and Barbosa forcibly demolished the house, claiming ownership. The materials were placed with the barrio lieutenant. The Bicerras sued for damages of P200 for the house and P600 in moral and consequential damages. The issue was whether the demolished house remained a real property. The court held that once a house is demolished, it ceases to exist as an immovable property and is instead considered a chattel.

Uploaded by

Joshua Lanzon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
221 views1 page

Bicera V Teneza

The Bicerras owned a house worth P200 that was built on land owned by Tomasa Teneza and Benjamin Barbosa. In 1957, Teneza and Barbosa forcibly demolished the house, claiming ownership. The materials were placed with the barrio lieutenant. The Bicerras sued for damages of P200 for the house and P600 in moral and consequential damages. The issue was whether the demolished house remained a real property. The court held that once a house is demolished, it ceases to exist as an immovable property and is instead considered a chattel.

Uploaded by

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

Antonio Bicerra, Domingo Bicerra, Bernardo Bicerra, Cayetano Bicerra, Linda Bicerra, Pio Bicerra

and Eufricina Bicerra vs. Tomasa Teneza and Benjamin Barbosa G.R. No. L-16218. November 29,
1962

Facts: The Bicerra’s 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.” 

Issue: WON the house having ceased to exist is a real property? 

Held: 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. 
evidence is the chattel mortgage already registered by Strong Machinery (constructive notice). 

SUMMARY: ● First mortgage: Compania Agricola Filipina bought rice-cleaning machinery from the machinery company and this was
secured by a chattel mortgage on the machinery and the building to which it was installed. Upon failure to
pay, the chattel mortgage was foreclosed, the building and machinery sold in public auction and bought
by the machinery company. 
● Days after, the Compania Agricola Filipina executed a deed of sale over the land to which the building
stood in favor of the machinery company. This was done to cure any defects that may arise in the
machinery company’s ownership of the building. 
● Second mortgage: on or about the date to which the chattelmortgage was excecuted, Compania
executed a real estatemortgage over the building in favor of Leung Yee, distinct and separate from the
land. This is to secure payment for its indebtedness for the construction of the building. Upon failure to
pay, the mortgage was foreclosed. 
● The machinery company then filed a case, demanding that it be declared the rightful owner of the
building. The trial court held that it was the machinery company which was the rightful owner as it had its
title before the building was registered prior to the date of registry of Leung Yee’s certificate. 

You might also like