REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

National Capital Judicial Region
Branch 100
Makati
SPOUSES JUNATHAN AND DUNABELLE A. 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
PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
COMES NOW, the plantiffs by counsel and to this Honorable Court, respectfully
submits this pre-trial brief in compliance with the trial courts order dated January 5,
2015, containing the following:
1. Plaintiff is willing to enter into an amicable settlement of the case, under
terms and
conditions which are agreeable to both parties.
2. The issues which plaintiffs raises are as follows:
2.1) Whether there was encroachment by defendants;
2.2) Whether defendants violated the right of way agreement;
2.3) Whether plaintiffs were damaged by said violation;

2.4) Whether defendants should comply with the said right of way;
2.5) Whether defendants should pay damages to the plaintiff;
3. The plaintiffs request defendants to admit the following matters:
3.1) That plaintiffs own a parcel of land inside Jacks Compound, Talon V,
Las Pinas City covered by TCT No.
3.2) That the plaintiffs lot and the lot of the defendants are attached to
each other;
3.3) That this lot of the plaintiffs and the lot of the defendants were
formerly part of a bigger lot owned by plaintiffs mother, Lucia Angel
Vda. Bahaghari, covered by TCT No.
3.4) That from the main road of AlabangZapote road then going to the
main street inside Jacks Compound, one will pass through a small street
to be able to reach the plaintiffs lot;
3.5) That is is the only way to reach plaintiffs lot;
3.6) That on the right portion of said street, in going to plaintiffs lot, lies a
concrete fence which divides Jacks Compound from its neighboring lot;
3.7) That on the left portion of said street, in going to plaintiffs lot, lies
several rows of apartments, the first owned by Pedro Jose, while the last is
owned by RunaldBahaghari (now deceased), married to Mary Mae
Bahaghari, with the other defendants as their children and only heirs;
3.8) That simultaneous with the transfer of defendants of their subject lot
from plaintiffs mother, a Right of Way instrument was annotated on
defendants title which reads:
ENTRY NO. 11111 RIGHT OF WAY The parcel of land
described in this certificateof title Is subject to a right of way of
two (2) meters wide.
3.9) That the owner of the first apartment, Pedro Jose, complied with this
2-meter right of way;
3.10) That the defendants did not comply with this right of way when they
constructed their apartment encroaching on said right of way, leaving only
one (1) meter;

3.11) That in fact, their apartment was constructed beyond and over their
bounderies, if one is to consider the right of way;
3.12) That as a result, the measurement of the only ingress and egress to
and from plaintiffs lot was reduced. The defendants encroachment
reduced in value and use plaintiffs lot because of defendants
encroachment of one meter on the right of way;
3.13) That the said encroachment negated the plaintiffs long time plan on
their lot for the construction of apartment units for rent;
3.14) That plaintiffs repeatedly complained about this encroachment from
the time the defendants constructed their apartments but all of which were
ignored;
3.15) That plaintiff JunathanBahaghari even wrote defendants a letter but
the same was also ingnored;
3.16) That this continuous refusal of defendants to comply with said right
of way inflicted on plaintiffs damages approximated at P100,000;
3.17) That in fact, defendants had their apartment fixed but instead of
complying with the provision of the Right of Way, they had their
apartment and encroachment strengthened, despite notice from plaintiffs;
3.18) That what was constructed on the right of way and to be removed is
only two walls of a one floor apartment of minimal value and will not
cause substantial damage to the defendants;
3.19) That plaintiffs were forced to retain undersigned counsel with
P100,000 as acceptance fee;
3.20) That defendants should be ordered to pay P100,000 exemplary
damages to show as example for public good because of failure to show
respect to the law and contracts.
4.) Plaintiffs intend to present the following documents, in connection with which
the plaintiffs request from defendants their admission of their execution and due
authenticity:
4.1) All the attachment in the Complaint;

4.2) Proof of payment of Attorneys fees;

4.3) And others.
5.) Plaintiffs intend to present about 5 witnesses that will testify on the substance
of the Complaint.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs prays that the foregoing be taken cognizance of.

City of Las Pinas, Philippines.