Title
Supreme Court
Knights of Rizal vs. DMCI Homes, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 213948
Decision Date
Apr 25, 2017
DMCI-PDI acquired a Manila lot for Torre de Manila, secured permits despite local opposition, and faced petitions alleging nuisance and sightline impact; Supreme Court dismissed for jurisdiction, lack of legal standing.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 43103)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and subject property
    • Knights of Rizal (KOR) – a civic, nonsectarian organization created by RA 646, tasked to commemorate and promote the teachings of national hero Jose Rizal.
    • DMCI Homes, Inc. / DMCI Project Developers, Inc. (DMCI-PDI) – developer of the Torre de Manila condominium project.
    • Public respondents – City of Manila; National Commission for Culture and the Arts; National Museum; National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP).
  • Torre de Manila development and local government actions
    • DMCI-PDI acquired a 7,716.60-sqm lot beside Luneta Park on 1 Sept 2011 for a 49-storey condominium.
    • It obtained barangay clearance (2 Apr 2012), zoning permit (19 Jun 2012), and building permit (5 Jul 2012).
    • Manila City Council issued resolutions (No. 121/2012; No. 146/2013) recommending suspension of permits, citing obstruction of Rizal Monument sightlines.
    • City Legal Office, NHCP, and other agencies opined the lot lies outside Rizal Park and does not obstruct monument views.
  • KOR’s petition and procedural history
    • On 12 Sept 2014, KOR filed an original petition for injunction with the Supreme Court to stop and demolish Torre de Manila.
    • Supreme Court, by resolution (25 Nov 2014), treated the petition as one for mandamus and impleaded the City of Manila, NCCA, NM, and NHCP as respondents.
    • KOR alleges:
      • Violations of constitutional and statutory duties to conserve and protect cultural heritage (Constitution, RA 10066, NHCP Guidelines, Venice Charter).
      • Torre de Manila is a nuisance per se that “offends the senses” by destroying the monument’s visual dominance.
      • Project commenced and continued in bad faith and in breach of Manila’s zoning ordinance (Ordinance No. 8119).

Issues:

  • Do Sections 15 and 16, Article XIV of the Constitution or any statute/ordinance create a clear, judicially enforceable duty to protect the vista, sightlines, or setting of the Rizal Monument?
  • Does Manila Ordinance No. 8119 (Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance of 2006), specifically Sections 45, 47, and 48, require the City of Manila to consider heritage, environmental, and aesthetic standards in issuing permits for Torre de Manila?
  • Are the Knights of Rizal entitled to file an original petition for injunction or mandamus in the Supreme Court? Do they have standing and an actual, ripe controversy?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.