TORRE DE MANILA

CASE STUDY

t
THE CASE:

Before this Court is a Petition for Injunction, with

Applications for Temporary Restraining Order, Writ of
Preliminary Injunction, and Others’ filed by the Knights
of Rizal (KOR) seeking, among others, for an order to
stop the construction of respondent DMCI Homes, Inc.
's condominium development project known as the
Torre de Manila. In its Resolution dated 25 November
2014, the Court resolved to treat the petition as one
for mandamus.
THE PETITIONER:
Knights Of Rizal :
The Order of the Knights of Rizal is the sole order of
knighthood in the Philippines. The Order is created to
honor and uphold the ideals of Philippine national
hero Jose Rizal. Its ranks and insignia are recognized
in the Honors Code of the Philippines as official awards
of the Republic and is the Eighth Class Rank in the
order of precedence of civilian decorations of the
Orders, decorations, and medals in the Philippines.
Formed under Republic act 646
Since its founding, the Order has grown to more than
10,000 members belonging to more than fifteen
chapters around the world including Australia,
Germany, Italy, Spain and the U.S. Its international
headquarters is located on Bonifacio Drive in Port Area,
Manila.
 TERMS

 Temporary Restraining Order

is a court order of limited duration. A TRO commands the parties in the case to
maintain a certain status until the court can hear further evidence and decide whethe
r to issue a preliminary injunction.

 Preliminary Injunction
A preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an action or
proceeding prior to the judgment or final order, requiring a party or a court ,
agency or a person to refrain from a particular act or acts. It may also require
the performance of a particular act or acts, in which case it shall be known
as a preliminary mandatory injunction.
Mandamus ("We command")

is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a superior court to any

government subordinate court, corporation, or public authority to do (or forbear from
doing) some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do (or refrain from
doing), and which is in the nature of public duty, and in certain cases one of a
statutory duty. It cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against
statutory provision. For example, it cannot be used to force a lower court to reject or
authorize applications that have been made, but if the court refuses to rule one way
or the other then a mandamus can be used to order the court to rule on the
applications.
FACTS ABOUT THE CASE

 SEPTEMBER 1 2011 – DMCI Project DeveloPers, Inc. (DMCI-PDI) acquired a

7,716.60 square meter lot in the city of Manila, located near Taft Avenue
Ermita beside former Jai-Alai building and Adamson University.

 April 2 2012 – DMCI-PDI secured its Barangay Clearance to start the

construction of its project. It then obtained a Zoning Permit from the City
Of Manila’s City Planning and Development office on June 19 2012

Zoning is the division of community into zones or districts according to

the current potential uses of a certain land area. It can be classified as
Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Agricultural, Recreational , etc.
 FACTS ABOUT THE CASE
 July 5, 2012 - City Of Manila officially granted DMCI-PDI a building permit to build a 49
storey w/ Basement and 2 penthouse Level res’l/ Condominium on the property.

 July 24 2012 – City Of Manila issued a resolution no. 121 enjoining the office of the
Building Official to temporarily suspend the building permit of DMCI-PDI citing that
based on their development plans, upon completion will rise up above the back of the
national monument to clearly dwarf the statue of our hero and will ruin the line of sight of
the rizal shrine form the Frontal Roxas Boulevard vantage point.

 The Building Official sought the opinion of the city legal officer on whether he is bound to
comply with the resolution. The Legal Officer replied that “There is no legal justification
for the temporary suspension of the Building Permit since the construction lies outside
Luneta.
FACTS ABOUT THE CASE

 The Legal Officer added that “There is no showing that the area of
subject property has been officially declared as an anthropological
or archaeological area neither designated by NHCI as heritage
zone, cultural property or Historical Landmark.

 The NHCP(National Historical Commission Of the Philippines was

consulted and agree that the The Torre De Manila Project Site is
outside the boundaries of Rizal Park and rear of Rizal Monument thus
cannot possibly obstruct the frontal view of the national monument.
 ARGUMENTS OF THE KOR

 On 12 September 2014, the KOR, a "civic, patriotic, cultural,

nonpartisan, non-sectarian and non-profit organization" created
under Republic Act No. 646 filed a Petition for Injunction seeking a
temporary restraining order and later a permanent injunction
against the construction of DMCI's Torre de Manila condominium
project. The KOR argues that the subject matter of the present suit is
one of "transcendental importance, paramount public interest, of
overarching significance to society, or with far reaching implication"
involving the desecration of the Rizal Monument.
 The KOR asserts that the completed Torre de Manila
structure will "[stick] out like a sore thumb, [dwarf] all surrounding
buildings within a radius of two kilometers" and "forever ruin the
sightline of the Rizal Monument in Luneta Park: Torre de Manila
building would loom at the back and overshadow the entire
monument, whether up close or viewed from a distance. ‘’(The
KOR argues that the Rizal Monument, as a National Treasure, is
entitled to "full protection of the law" and the national
government must abate the act or activity that endangers the
nation's cultural heritage "even against the wishes of the local
government hosting it."
Facts About The Case

 The KOR contends that the project is a nuisance

pes se is a situation that 'annoy's or offends the
senses' of every Filipino who honors the memory
of the National Hero Jose Rizal. It is a present,
continuing, worsening and aggravating status or
condition. Hence, the PROJECT is a nuisance per
se. It deserves to be abated summarily, even
without need of judicial proceeding.
A nuisance per se is something that would be a
nuisance no matter where it was located. In other
words, “per se” means that the thing that’s
interfering with the plaintiff’s quiet use and
enjoyment of their own property would interfere
with any plaintiff’s quiet use and enjoyment of
their own property, no matter who the plaintiff was
or where the nuisance was located.
"The KOR also claims that the Torre de Manila project 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. Lastly, the KOR claims that the DMCI-
PDI's construction was commenced and continues in bad faith, and is
in violation of the City of Manila's zoning ordinance.
 Arguments of DMCI-PDI In ~ts Comment, DMCI-PDI argues that the KOR's
petition should be dismisse~ on the following grounds: I i I. THXS
HONORABLE COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THIS ACfrION. i II. KOR
HAS NO LEGAL RIGHT OR INTEREST TO FILE OR PR0SECUTE THIS ACTION. ! III
TORRE DE MANILA IS NOT A NUISANCE PER SE. IV. DlVl;CI-PDI ACTED IN
GOOD FAITH IN CONSTRUCTING TORRE DE iMANILA; AND I ! v. KOR IS NOT
ENTITLED TO A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORPER AND/OR A WRIT OF
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.