REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

National Capital Judicial Region
Branch 100
Las Pinas
SPOUSES JUNATHAN AND
DUNABELLE BAHAGHARI
Plaintiffs,
-vs-

Civil Case No. 010001

( Removal of encroachment,
specific performance and
damages)

HEIRS OF RUNALD BAHAGHARI LED BY HIS

SPOUSE MARY MAE BAHAGHARI
Defendants,
x------------------------------------------------------x

ANSWER
DEFENDANTS, by counsel, to this honorable court, respectfully aver:

SPECIFIC DENIALS/ADMISSIONS

1. Defendants admit the allegations in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the

complaint, respecting the identities and personal circumstances
of the parties

2. Defendants, heirs of Ronald Bahaghari, admit the plaintiffs

ownership of property in Jacks compound but not its exact
boundaries or location
3. Defendants admit the existence of the concrete fence division
as well as their ownership of some rows of apartment in Jacks
compound

4. Defendants admit the allegations in paragraphs 9 to 11 of the

complaint
5. Defendants, being heirs of Ronald Bahaghari, lack sufficient
knowledge to determine the truth of falsity of the allegations in
paragraphs 12 and 13. Defendants, however, admit to the
existence of the deed of partition and grant of right of way.
6. Defendants dent the allegation in paragraph 14 for lack of
knowledge sufficient to determine the truth or falsity thereof but
admit Lucia Bahagharis ownership of property in Jacks
compound.
7. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraphs 15 to 16 for lack
of knowledge sufficient to determine the truth or falsity thereof.
It was the defendants predecessor, Ronald Bahaghari, who
caused the construction and development of the subject
premises in 1999. Plaintiff cannot disclaim knowledge of the
said construction since he resides in Jacks compound whereas
defendants do not. Despite such knowledge, however, plaintiff
did not make any objection or protest when construction was
evident, while it was undergoing and even long after
construction was completed. It was only after more than 15
years since the apartment was constructed by Ronald Bahghari
that plaintiff chose to raise the complaint.
8. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraphs 17 to 19 for
being conclusion, devoid of factual and legal truth. Assuming
plaintiffs ownership of the adjoining property, contrary to his
allegations, plaintiff has commenced construction of said
property in 1999.
9. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraphs 20 to 22 for
being false. Defendants did not receive the letter (Annex G) nor
were they approached by anybody regarding the alleged
encroachment.
10.
Defendants deny the allegations in paragraphs 23 to 25
for being false and lack any factual and legal basis. The works
referred to consisted of minor repairs of the ceiling. Defendants
admit the filing of the unjust vexation case against the plaintiff.
Defendants never received any summons from the barangay
regarding the alleged encroachment.
11.
Defendants deny the rest of the allegations for lack of
knowledge and for being groundless and unmeritorious.

SPECIAL/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
12.
Defendants are the heirs of Ronald Bahaghari who was
the brother of the plaintiff. Ronald Bahagharis estate consisted
of the subject property in Jacks Compound, among others.
13.
Ronald Bahaghari constructed several units of apartment
on his property in Jacks compound in 1999. Upon completion,
these were leased out and tenanted.
14.
Assuming that the 2 meter right of way was not observed,
plaintiff never objected to Ronald Bahagharis construction of
the subject apartment. It is only now that he is filing the
complaint, after more than 15 years. Clearly, plaintiffs
negligence or omission to assert the 2 meter right of way,
assuming its validity and enforceability, within a reasonable
time, warrants a presumption that he has abandoned it or
declined to assert it.
15.
Defendants predecessor had already spent a lot of
money, time and effort in developing the property that it is highly
inconvenient to disturb the structure that the defendants
predecessor had constructed in 1999. In the case of Miguel vs.
Catalino (26 SCRA 235), courts cannot look with favor at
parties who, by their silence, delay and inaction, knowingly
induce another to spend time, effort and expense in cultivating
the land, paying taxes and making improvements therein.
16.
Plaintiff cannot disclaim any knowledge of the
construction as he resides in Jacks compound. Assuming that
there is encroachment, plaintiff had numerous opportunities to
protest and complain. Plaintiffs failure or neglect, for an
unreasonable length of time, to do that which by exercising due
diligence, could or should have been done earlier, is a clear
indication of his tolerance and abandonment of his claims.
17.
Again assuming the alleged encroachment, plaintiff has
not been prevented from developing the property, contrary you
his allegation as in fact, he has commercial improvement on the
said property. On the other hand, defendants will be greatly
prejudiced and suffer more damage and injury if the complaint
will be granted considering that it was their predecessor who
made the construction with the knowledge of the plaintiff and
the latters long silence and inaction despite such knowledge.
PRAYER

WHEREFOR, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this

Honorable Court that an order be issued dismissing the instant
complaint for being devoid of factual and legal merit
Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for.
Muntinlupa City, January 11, 2015.

GUMAPAC AND HOCSON LAW OFFICES

Counsel for the Defendant
12 floor, Kingston Tower, Madrigal Ave.
Alabang, Muntinlupa City
th

MA. ANGELICA J. GUMAPAC

PTR No. 7014656; 2-08-12; MUNTINLUPA CITY
IBP No. 603666; 2-09-12; MUNTINLUPA CITY
Attorneys Roll No. 58403
JOSEPH ERWIN HOCSON
PTR No. 7013456; 2-08-12; MUNTINLUPA CITY
IBP No. 7863666; 2-09-12;MUNTINLUPA CITY
Attorneys Roll No. 57890