KNIGHTS OF RIZAL vs. DMCI HOMES, INC.

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

A. Doctrine of the Case:

B. FACTS:
DMCI Project Developers, Inc. (DMCI-PDI) acquired a lot for the construction of its
Torre de Manila condominium project. However, it garnered some backlash as people
believed that the Torre de Manila Condominium, based on their development plans,
upon completion, will rise and tower over the Rizal Monument in Luneta Park.

Soon after, its building permit was temporarily suspended and DMCI-PDI sought to
rectify this by asking from the opinion of the City of Manila's City Legal Office as well as
National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP). Both concurred that “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.”

Afterwards, it was found that there was a deviation from the required Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) as prescribed in City Ordinance 8119. DMCI-PDI then sought the Manila Zoning
Board of Adjustments and Appeals (MZBAA) for the approval of the variance. It was
allowed by MZBAAA subject to the five conditions. The Manila City Council, following
suit, adopted the MZBAAA’s resolution and lifted the suspension of DMCI-PDI’s permit.

KOR filed a petition for a writ of mandamus against the officials of the City of Manila
arguing that Torre de Manila would ruin the sightline of the Rizal Monument,
overshadowing it and looming in the back whether from a distance or up close. It argues
that the monument is a National Treasure, thus afforded full protection of the law.

DMCI contends that the Torre de Manila is not a nuisance per se. DMCI-PDI reiterates
that it obtained all the necessary permits, licenses, clearances, and certificates for its
construction. It added that multiple tall buildings stood nearer to Luneta Park such as
Eton Baypark Tower at the corner of Roxas Boulevard and T.M. Kalaw Street (29
storeys; 235 meters from the Rizal Monument) and Sunview Palace at the corner of
M.H. Del Pilar and T.M. Kalaw Streets (42 storeys; 250 meters from the Rizal
Monument), compared to Torre de Manila which is some 700 meters away.

C. ISSUE/(S):
Whether the Court can issue a writ of mandamus against the officials of the City of
Manila to stop the construction of DMCI’s Torre De Manila project
D. RULING:
NO. There is no law that warrants the grant of a writ of mandamus since there is no law
prohibiting the construction of the Torre De Manila. What is not expressly or impliedly
prohibited by law may be done, except when the act is contrary to morals, customs and
public order.

The Constitution states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law. It is a fundamental principle that no property shall be taken
away from an individual without due process, substantive or procedural. The
dispossession of property, or in this case the stoppage of construction of a building in
one’s own property, would violate substantive due process.

In the present case, nowhere is it found in Ordinance No. 8119 or in any law, ordinance,
or rule for that matter, that the construction of a building outside the Rizal Park is
prohibited if the building is within the background sightline or view of the Rizal
Monument. Thus, there is no legal duty on the part of the City of Manila "to consider," in
the words of the Dissenting Opinion, "the standards set under Ordinance No. 8119" in
relation to the applications of DMCI-PDI for the Torre de Manila since under the
ordinance these standards can never be applied outside the boundaries of Rizal Park.
While the Rizal Park has been declared a National Historical Site, the area where Torre
de Manila is being built is a privately-owned property that is "not part of the Rizal Park
that has been declared as a National Heritage Site in 1995," and the Torre de Manila
area is in fact "well-beyond" the Rizal Park, according to NHCP Chairperson Dr. Maria
Serena I. Diokno. Neither has the area of the Torre de Manila been designated as a
"heritage zone, a cultural property, a historical landmark or even a national treasure."

Mandamus will lie only if the officials of the City of Manila have a ministerial duty to
consider these standards to buildings outside of the Rizal Park. There can be no such
ministerial duty because these standards are not applicable to buildings outside of the
Rizal Park.