Case Digest (G.R. No. 213948)
Facts:
Knights of Rizal v. DMCI Homes, Inc., DMCI Project Developers, Inc., City of Manila, National Commission for Culture and the Arts, National Museum, and National Historical Commission of the Philippines, G.R. No. 213948, April 25, 2017, the Supreme Court En Banc, Carpio, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Knights of Rizal (KOR) — a civic, patriotic, cultural, non‑profit corporation created under Republic Act No. 646 — filed an original petition for injunction (with applications for TRO and preliminary injunction) to stop construction of respondent DMCI Project Developers, Inc.'s condominium project known as the Torre de Manila, alleging that the building would “dwarf” and permanently mar the sightline, vista and setting of the Rizal Monument in Luneta Park and thus offend the conservation and protection mandates for national heritage. The Court later treated the petition as one for mandamus (Rule 65). A TRO had been issued by this Court on 16 June 2015 and was in effect during parts of the proceedings below.
The factual background is that DMCI-PDI acquired a lot beside Taft Avenue, Ermita (near the Jai‑Alai building and Adamson University) on 1 September 2011 and sought development approvals: a Barangay clearance (2 April 2012), a Zoning Permit from the City Planning and Development Office (19 June 2012) and a Building Permit from the City Office of the Building Official (5 July 2012) to construct a 49‑storey condominium. Local opposition produced City Council Resolutions (No. 121, July 24, 2012; No. 146, November 26, 2013) directing suspension, and the City Legal Officer (12 September 2012) advised that there was no legal basis to suspend the permit because the site lay outside Luneta Park and no formal heritage designation had been made for the lot. The National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP) likewise advised (Nov. 2012) that the project lay outside Rizal Park and would not obstruct the frontal view of the monument.
Because the project exceeded certain Floor‑Area‑Ratio (FAR) and land‑occupancy standards in Ordinance No. 8119 (Manila Zoning Ordinance), DMCI-PDI applied for a variance; the Manila Zoning Board of Adjustments and Appeals (MZBAA) recommended approval by Resolution No. 06 (23 December 2013) and its amendment (8 January 2014), and the City Council adopted those recommendations by Resolution No. 5 (16 January 2014), ratifying previously issued permits. Thereafter, on 12 September 2014 KOR filed its petition in the Supreme Court seeking injunctive relief and, alternatively, a mandamus compelling respondents to stop or demolish construction. DMCI‑PDI, City of Manila and cultural agencies filed oppositions, arguing lack of jurisdiction/standing, that no law prohibits the construction, that DMCI‑PDI acted in good faith and obtained permits (and that zoning and variance mat...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does petitioner Knights of Rizal have standing and may the Supreme Court exercise original jurisdiction over this petition filed as an injunction (i.e., was direct filing to this Court proper)?
- Does a writ of mandamus lie to compel the City of Manila (and other public cultural agencies) to stop construction of or order the demolition of the Torre de Manila?
- Do existing national or local laws, or international instruments or guidelines (notably Republic Act No. 10066, the Venice Charter, the NHCP Guidelines, and Ordinance No. 8119 Sections 45–48), prohibit or require the abatement of a building outside a heritage site because it affects a monument’s background view, sightline or setting?
- Is the Torre de Manila a nuisance per se (or per accidens) that may be summarily abated without a full trial? ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)