KNIGHTS OF RIZAL v. DMCI HOMES, INC.

G.R. No. 213948, April 25, 2017, Carpio, J.

Facts:

In September 2011, DMCI Project Developers, Inc. (DMCI-PDI) acquired a 7,716.60-square

The City of Manila's Office of the Building Official granted DMCI-PDI a Building Permit on July 5,
2012. However, on the same month, the City Council of Manila issued Resolution No. 121
directing the Building Official's Office to temporarily halt the Building Permit of DMCI-PDI, citing
among others, that "the Torre de Manila Condominium, based on their development plans,
upon completion, will rise up high above the back of the national monument, to clearly dwarf
the statue of our hero, and with such towering heights, would certainly ruin the line of sight of
the Rizal Shrine from the frontal Roxas Boulevard vantage point.”

Melvin Q. Balagot, Building Official, sought an opinion from Manila's City Legal Officer Renato G.
Dela Cruz. The City of Manila's City Legal Officer stated the following: (a) no legal justification
for the temporary suspension of DMCI-PDI's Building Permit issued; (b) simply too far to be a
repulsive distraction or have an objectionable effect on the artistic and historical significance"
of the Rizal Monument; (c) no showing that the [area of] subject property has been officially
declared as an anthropological or archeological area. Neither has it been categorically
designated by the National Historical Institute as a heritage zone, a cultural property, a
historical landmark or even a national treasure.

Pertaining on this matter, the City of Manila and DMCI-PDI are both sought an advice from
National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP). In responsed, the NHCP maintained
the statement that “the Torre de Manila project site is outside the boundaries of the Rizal Park
and well to the rear of the Rizal Monument, and thus, cannot possibly obstruct the frontal view
of the National Monument.”

The City Council of Manila issued Resolution No. 146 in November 2013, reiterating its directive
in Resolution No. 121 enjoining the City of Manila's building officials to temporarily suspend
DMCI-PDI's Building Permit. DMCI-PDI also involved in controversy of violating the Zoning Laws.
But since CPDO granted its Zoning Permit, DMCI-PDI continued with the application for the
Building Permit, and expresses their willingness to comply with the process if the City of Manila
deemed it necessary.

With DMCI-PDI’s plea, in December 2013, the Manila Zoning Board of Adjustments and Appeals
(MZBAA) issued Zoning Board Resolution No. 06, Series of 2013, recommending the approval of
DMCI-PDI's application for variance which noted that the Torre de Manila project "exceeds the
prescribed maximum Percentage of Land Occupancy (PLO) and exceeds the prescribed Floor
Area Ratio (FAR) as stipulated in Article V, Section 17 of City Ordinance No. 8119." However, the
MZBAA still recommended the approval of the variance subject to the five conditions set under
the same resolution. In January 2014, the City Council of Manila issued Resolution No. 5, Series
of 2014, which ratifying and confirming all previously issued permits, licenses and approvals
issued by the City.

In September 2014, the Knights of Rizal (KOR) filed a Petition for Injunction seeking a temporary
restraining order, and later a permanent injunction, against the construction of DMCI-PDI's
Torre de Manila condominium project. The KOR was a "civic, patriotic, cultural, nonpartisan,
non-sectarian and non-profit organization" created under Republic Act No. 646. The present
suit, according to KOR, involves "transcendental importance, paramount public interest,
overarching significance to society, or with far-reaching implications" involving the desecration
of the Rizal Monument.

KOR argues that the Rizal Monument, as a National Treasure, is entitled to full protection of the
law. They also contend that the project is nuisance per se because the despoliation of the Rizal
Monument's sight view irritates or offends the senses of every Filipino who honors the legacy of
National Hero Jose Rizal. DMCI-PDI also violates the NHCP's Guidelines on Monuments
Honoring National Heroes, Illustrious Filipinos and Other Personages, which state that historic
monuments should assert a visual "dominance" over its surroundings, as well as the country's
commitment under the International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of
Monuments and Sites, otherwise known as the Venice Charter; and the construction was
commenced and continues in bad faith due to violation in City of Manila's zoning ordinance.

In contrary to KOR’s petition, DMCI-PID argues that the said petition was dismissed on the
following grounds: (a) that this honorable court has no jurisdiction over this action; (b) that KOR
has no legal right or interest to file or prosecute this action; (c) that Torre de Manila is not a
nuisance per se; (d) that DMCI acted in good faith in constructing Torre de Manila; and (e)
that KOR is not entitled to a temporary restraining order and/or a writ of preliminary injunction
as they failed to establish "a clear and unmistakable right to enjoin the construction of Torre de
Manila, much less request its demolition.”

The City of Manila argues that the writ of mandamus cannot issue since there are no property
or substantive rights whatsoever in favor of KOR is being affected. The City of Manila also
asserts "issuance and revocation of a Building Permit undoubtedly fall under the category of a
discretionary act or duty performed by the proper officer in light of his meticulous appraisal and
evaluation of the pertinent supporting documents of the application in accordance with the
rules laid out under the National Building Code [and] Presidential Decree No. 1096," while the
remedy of mandamus is available only to compel the performance of a ministerial duty. The
construction of the Torre de Manila did not violate any existing law since the "edifice [is] well
behind (some 789 meters away) the line of sight of the Rizal Monument. With regard to Zoning
Laws, the City Council adopted the MZBAA's favorable recommendation in its Resolution No. 5,
ratifying all the licenses and permits issued to DMCI-PDI for its Torre de Manila project.

Issue:
Whether or not the Court can 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:
No. There is no law prohibiting the construction of the Torre de Manila. The Court held that
"what is not expressly or impliedly prohibited by law may be done, except when the act is
contrary to morals, customs and public order, or that upholding the same would lead to a more
equitable solution to the controversy."

Also, there is no allegation or proof that the Torre de Manila project is "contrary to morals,
customs, and public order" or that it brings harm, danger, or hazard to the community; and
there is no law prohibiting the construction of the Torre de Manila due to its effect on the
background "view, vista, sightline, or setting" of the Rizal Monument.

Section 47 of Ordinance No. 8119 primarily regulates the "development of historic sites and
facilities", and Section 48 regulates "large commercial signage and/or pylon." These conclude
that nothing in Sections 47 and 48 of Ordinance No. 8119 disallows the construction of a
building outside the boundaries of a historic site or facility. Republic Act No. 10066 or the
National Cultural Heritage Act of 2009 cannot apply to the Torre de Manila condominium
project because the construction of the project does not affect the physical integrity of the
national cultural treasures, particularly the Rizal Monument.

Mandamus does not lie against the City of Manila. As stated in the Rules on Civil Procedure,
mandamus can only be issue when there is a clear legal duty imposed upon the office or the
officer sought to be compelled to perform an act, and when the party seeking mandamus has a
clear legal right to the performance of such act.

The KOR also requests the Court to exercise its extraordinary certiorari power of review under
Sec. 1, Art. VII of the Constitution. However, this Court can only be exercised this power if the
City of Manila was gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
issuing the required permits and licenses. Neither the majority nor minority opinion in this case
found that the City of Manila abused its discretion in issuing the permits and licenses to DMCI-
PDI. As a result, there is no justification for this Court to exercise its extraordinary certiorari
power.

In cases where the question of constitutionality of a governmental action is raised, the judicial
power that the courts exercise is likewise identified as the power of judicial review — the
power to review the constitutionality of the actions of other branches of government.

In the present case, the KOR elevated this case immediately to this Court in an original petition
for injunction which we later on treated as one for mandamus under Rule 65. However, no
clear legal duty on the City of Manila to consider the provisions of Ordinance No. 8119 for
applications for permits to build outside the protected areas of the Rizal Park.

It is the policy of the courts not to 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. Mandamus does not lie against the legislative and executive branches
or their members acting in the exercise of their official discretionary functions. This emanates
from the respect accorded by the judiciary to said branches as co-equal entities under the
principle of separation of powers.

The KOR is Estopped from Questioning the Torre de Manila Construction. According to the
NHCP, KOR also proposed a project that would have dwarfed the Rizal Monument. With this
regard, the Court reiterated that he who seeks equity must do equity.

Torre de Manila is Not a Nuisance Per Se. As Article 694 of the Civil Code define nuisance as as
any act, omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or anything else which: (1)
injures or endangers the health or safety of others; (2) annoys or offends the senses; (3) shocks,
defies or disregards decency or morality; (4) obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any
public highway or street, or any body of water; or (5) hinders or impairs the use of property.
Torre de Manila project cannot be considered as a "direct menace to public health or safety.”

The TRO must be lifted. The legal rights of the KOR are not well-define so that the petition for
mandamus must be dismissed and the TRO lifted. In general rule, the courts will not disturb the
findings of administrative agencies when they are supported by substantial evidence.