View full case

KNIGHTS OF RIZAL v. DMCI HOMES

FACTS:

On 1 September 2011, DMCI Project Developers, Inc. (DMCI-PDI) acquired a 7,716.60-square meter lot in Ermita, Manila, near Taft Avenue, beside the former Manila Jai-Alai Building and Adamson University, designated for the Torre de Manila condominium project. By 2 April 2012, DMCI-PDI secured a Barangay Clearance to commence construction and obtained a Zoning Permit from the City Planning and Development Office (CPDO) on 19 June 2012. Subsequently, on 5 July 2012, the Office of the Building Official in Manila issued a Building Permit for a "Forty-Nine (49) Storey w/ Basement & 2 penthouse Level Res'l./Condominium". However, on 24 July 2012, the City Council of Manila issued Resolution No. 121, temporarily suspending the Building Permit due to concerns that the Torre de Manila would overshadow the Rizal Monument and disrupt its sightline from Roxas Boulevard. Despite this, the City Legal Officer, based on an opinion requested by Building Official Melvin Q. Balagot on 12 September 2012, stated there was no legal justification for the suspension, clarifying that the construction site was outside Rizal Park and thus posed no significant visual disruption to the monument.

Both the City of Manila and DMCI-PDI later consulted the National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP), which, through letters dated 6 and 7 November 2012, confirmed the project site was outside the boundaries of Rizal Park and did not obstruct the monument's frontal view. Nevertheless, following an online petition that garnered around 7,800 signatures opposing the project, the Manila City Council reiterated its suspension directive in Resolution No. 146 on 26 November 2013. Addressing the ongoing controversy, DMCI-PDI President Alfredo R. Austria wrote to Mayor Joseph Ejercito Estrada on 18 December 2013, seeking clarification and expressing willingness to comply with additional processes if required.

On 23 December 2013, the Manila Zoning Board of Adjustments and Appeals (MZBAA) recommended approval of DMCI-PDI's application for variance through Zoning Board Resolution No. 06, Series of 2013, noting that the Torre de Manila project exceeded maximum land occupancy and floor area ratio limits. The City Council of Manila later adopted these resolutions, finding no reason to deny the application's approval and thus ratified all previously issued permits and licenses for the Torre de Manila project.

On 12 September 2014, the Knights of Rizal (KOR), a cultural and patriotic organization created under Republic Act No. 646, filed a Petition for Injunction seeking a temporary restraining order against the construction, citing the project's detrimental visual impact on the Rizal Monument. The KOR argued that the condominium would ruin the sightline of the monument, describing the situation as a nuisance per se, and claimed the project's construction violated the NHCP's guidelines and the country's commitments under the Venice Charter.

ISSUES:

  1. Can the Court issue a writ of mandamus against the officials of the City of Manila to stop the construction of DMCI-PDI's Torre de Manila project?

RULING:

  1. The petition for mandamus lacks merit and must be dismissed. There is no law prohibiting the construction of the Torre de Manila, and the standards set under Ordinance No. 8119 do not apply to the area where Torre de Manila is being built. Furthermore, mandamus does not lie against the City of Manila as there is no clear legal duty imposed upon the city officials to halt the construction of the Torre de Manila project.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. What is not expressly or impliedly prohibited by law may be done, except when the act is contrary to morals, customs, and public order. (Manila Electric Company v. Public Service Commission)

  2. Mandamus: A writ of mandamus can only be issued when there is a clear legal duty imposed upon an officer or office and when the party seeking mandamus has a clear legal right to the performance of such act.

  3. Separation of Powers: Courts should not interfere with the discretionary executive acts of the executive branch unless there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

  4. Hierarchy of Courts: Cases should be filed with the lowest court with jurisdiction over the subject matter before being escalated to the Supreme Court.

  5. Nuisance Per Se vs. Nuisance Per Accidens: A nuisance per se is a direct menace to public health or safety and can be summarily abated, while a nuisance per accidens depends on specific conditions and circumstances and requires proper adjudication to be abated.

  6. Estoppel: "One who seeks equity and justice must come to court with clean hands."