the defendant ildefonso tambunting , answering the petition , denied each and every allegation of the complaint , and alleged that said expropriation was not a public improvement ; that it was not necessary for the plaintiff to acquire the parcels of land in question ; that a portion of the lands in question was used as a cemetery in which were the graves of his ancestors ; that monuments and tombstones of great value were found thereon ; that the land had become quasi-public property of a benevolent association , dedicated and used for the burial of the dead and that many dead were buried there ; that if the plaintiff deemed it necessary to extend rizal avenue , he had offered and still offers to grant a right of way for the said extension over other land , without cost to the plaintiff , in order that the sepulchers , chapels and graves of his ancestors may not be disturbed ; that the land so offered , free of charge , would answer every public necessity on the part of the plaintiff .