REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 14
QUEZON CITY

AMANDO S. ROBILLO
Complainant,
- versus -

Civil Case No. 71234

(COLLECTION OF SUM
OF MONEY, ATTORNEYS
FEES AND OTHER
RELIEFS)

JOSHUA D. CELDRAN
Respondent.
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
COMES NOW defendant Joshua D. Celdran, through the undersigned
counsel, in answer to the Complaint dated February 12, 2016 filed by plaintiff
Amando S. Robillo, most respectfully alleges:
Admissions/Denials
1. That defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 2 regarding his
personal circumstances;
2. That defendant ;
I.
First Cause of Action (For Encroachment)
3. That plaintiffs own a parcel of land inside Jacks Compound, Talon V,
Las Pinas City, covered by TCT No. 11445 (Annex A);
4. That said lot is specifically Lot 123-E of Lot 123 (a 30,000 sq. m. lot the
covered by TCT 11444 (Annex B) registered in the name and owned
by the plaintiffs mother Prescilla B. Mangilit);
1

5. That this Lot 123-E can be found in the map/plan subdividing lot 123
(TCT 11445);
6. That from the main street inside Jacks Compound, one will pass through
a small street to be able to reach the plaintiffs lot. Actual site of part of
plaintiffs lot can be seen in Annex C;
7. That on the right portion of the said small street, in going to plaintiffs
lot, lies a concrete fence which divides Jacks Compound from its
neighbouring lot;
8. That on the left portion of said small street, in going to plaintiffs lot, lies
several rows of apartments, the first are owned by Rick Real, while the
last are owned by Boy Mangilit (now deceased) married to defendant
Mary May Mangilit, with the other defendants as their children and only
heirs;
9. That defendants lot is identified in the same map/plan;
10. That defendants title over said Lot 123-F where their apartment stood
is TCT 11446 (Annex D);
11. That defendants lot was given to them by Rick Aldrin Mangilits mother
Prescilla B. Mangilit who owned the entire Jacks Compound.
12. That simultaneous with the transfer to defendants of their Lot 123-F
among others, and to plaintiffs of their Lot 123-E a Deed of Partition
and Grant of Right of Way (Annex E) was executed by plaintiffs and
defendants as well as the latters predecessor, Boy Mangilit, wherein the
latter declared that: he hereby grants a right of way over a strip of land
two (2) meters wide in Lot 123-F extending upon and along the southern
side thereof.
13. That this partition and Grant of Right of Way were the bases of the
transfer of defendants Lot 123-F to them and the issuance to them of
TCT 11446, annotated on the defendants TCT 11446, which reads:
Entry No. 45754/T-S-39672 RIGHT OF WAY The parcel of
land described in this certificate of title is subject to a right of way of (2)
meters wide, extending upon and along the southern side thereof.
2

14. That the owner of the first apartment, Rick Real complied with this 2meter right of way (Annex F);
15. That, however, the defendants did not comply with this Right of Way.
They constructed their apartment encroaching on said right of way,
leaving only a right of way of one-meter, enough for a single person to
pass. This is shown by arrows in picture (Annex G);
16. That in fact, from an actual ocular inspection, their apartments were
constructed beyond and over their boundaries, subject to said right of
way.
17. That as a result, the measurement of the ingress and egress to and from
plaintiffs lot was reduced. So the defendants encroachment reduced in
value and use plaintiffs lot because of defendants encroachment of onemeter on the right of way;
18. That the said encroachment prevented the plaintiffs long time plan on
their lot for the construction of apartment units thereon for rent;
19. That there is no other ingress and egress to and from plaintiffs lot except
through the said passage way;
20. That plaintiffs repeatedly complained about this encroachment from the
time defendants constructed their apartment but they were just ignored;
21. That plaintiff even wrote defendants a letter in but the same was also
ignored. (Annex H);
22. That plaintiff Rick Aldrin Mangilit even wrote her sister to seek her help
in correcting defendants encroachment (Annex I) but nothing came out
of it;
23. That this adamant refusal of defendants to comply with the law and
honor

contractual

obligations

inflicted

on

plaintiffs

damages

approximated at Php 300,000.00 for lost business opportunities;

24. That in fact, on or about November 6, 2014, defendants had their
apartment fixed, but instead of complying with the provision of the Right
of Way, they had their apartment strengthened and encroachment
maintained, despite the notice to comply;

25. That due to the defendants failure to remove the encroachment,

plaintiffs were forced to file a complaint in the Barangay. However, no
compromise was reached. The Barangay was then forced to issue a
Certificate to File Action;
II.
Second Cause of Action
(Breach of Contract: Non-performance of obligation)
26. That apart from encroachment, the defendants are liable for breach of
contract for not complying with the Right of Way;
27. That defendants did not comply with the Right of Way thereby
encroaching the lot of the plaintiffs;
28. That in fact, from an actual ocular inspection, their apartments were
constructed beyond and over their boundaries, subject to said right of
way.
29. That the encroachment reduced the plaintiffs lot thereby causing
violation to the rights of the plaintiffs;
30. That there is no other ingress and egress to and from plaintiffs lot except
through the said passage way;

III. Third Cause of Action (Damages)

31. That from the said encroachment and breach of contract, the plaintiffs
suffered damages;
32. That the adamant refusal of defendants to comply with the law and honor
contractual obligations inflicted on plaintiffs damages approximated at
Php 300,000.00 for lost business opportunities;
33. That the said encroachment prevented the plaintiffs long time plan on
their lot for the construction of apartment units thereon for rent;
34. That there is no other ingress and egress to and from plaintiffs lot except
through the said passage way;
35. That plaintiffs were forced to retain undersigned counsel at unnecessary
cost to them of Php 450,000.00 acceptance fee, Php 10,000.00 per
hearing and a minimum of Php 5,000.00 per pleading or paper to be
prepared in connection with this case;

36. That plaintiffs had to retain a counsel to properly invoke their right on
the lot being encroached by the defendants;
37. That this cost of retaining a counsel is unnecessary expenses for them
since it is a huge amount of money;
38. That defendants should also be taught to respect the law and contracts.
They should be ordered to pay Php 100,000.00 in exemplary damages to
show an example for public good;
WHEREFORE, it is prayed that:
1. The said 2-meter right of way on TCT 11446 be ordered respected
and enforced;
2. That defendants be ordered to comply with the Right of Way;
3. The defendants be ordered to remove the said 1-meter encroachment
(part of their apartments) on the said Right of Way;
4. That plaintiffs be allowed to a complete, full and permanent access to
said 2-meter Right of Way leading to their lot without defendants
intervention, interference and harassment;
5. Defendants be ordered to pay plaintiffs:
a. Php 400,000.00 for actual and exemplary damages;
b. Php 500,000.00 for Attorneys fees.

City of Las Pinas, Philippines. February 16, 2016.

RONALD T. VARGAS
Counsel for the Plaintiff
The Lawyers Lair
8 Araw St., SFDM., Quezon City
Attorneys Roll No. 30231
MCLE Compliance # 0015639
IBP # 768927 Manila 3
PTR # 11128705 Quezon, City
January 2, 2015

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

ON NON-FORUM SHOPPING

We, spouses Rick Aldrin Mangilit and Dianne S. Mangilit, after having been
duly worn to in accordance with law hereby depose and say that:

1. We are tha plaintiffs in the above Complaint; We caused the preparation of

the Complaint; We read the contents thereof and we affirm that they are true
and correct of our own personal knowledge and based on authentic records;

2. We have not commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same
issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and to the best of our
knowledge, no such action or claim is pending therein; and if we should
thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is
pending, we shall report the fact within five (5) days therefrom to this
Honorable Court.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, We hereunto affix our signature this 16th

Day of February, 2016 in Las Pinas City, Metro Manila.

Rick Aldrin Mangilit

Dianne S. Mangilit

CTC No. 2012400044

CTC No. 2012400033

Issued at City of Las Pinas

Issued at City of Las Pinas

Issued on January 4, 2014

Issued on December 7, 2014

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 16th day of February

2015 at CITY OF LAS PINAS

Atty. Ericson D. Quinto

Notary Public

Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of

387
254
13
2016

COPY FURNISHED:
MARY MAY MANGILIT
123-F, Jacks Compound Talon V
Las Pinas City