KNIGHTS OF RIZAL v.

DMCI
Knights of Rizal Vs. 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

FACTS:

DMCI Project Developers, Inc. acquired a lot in the City of Manila.  The said lot was
earmarked for the construction of Torre de Manila Condominium project.  After having
acquired all the necessary permits and documents, the DMCI-PDI was ready to
commence the intended project.  However, the City of Manila Council issued a
resolution to temporarily suspend the Building Permit until such time that issues had
been cleared.  Consultations after consultations had he been initiated both by the City of
Manila and DMCI-PDI.  Finally, On Jan. 2014, the City Council of Manila, issued
another resolution ratifying and confirming all previously issued permits, licenses and
approvals issued by the City for Torre de Manila.

Knights of Rizal, on the other hand, filed a petition for injunction seeking TRO, and later
a permanent injunction, against the construction of the project.  The KOR argued that
the building, if completed, would be a sore to the view of the monument, an
endangerment to the nation’s cultural heritage, and a construction borne out of bad
faith.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the court should issue a writ of mandamus against the City Officials to
stop the construction of Torre de Manila.

RULING:

No, The SC ruled that there was no law prohibiting the construction of the project.   It
was not even considered as contrary to morals, customs and public order.  The project
was way well from the Park where the monument was located.  The SC ruled further
that a mandamus did not lie against the City of Manila. It is categorically clear that “a
mandamus is issued when there is a clear legal duty imposed upon the office or the
officer sought to be compelled to perform an act, and the party seeking mandamus has
a clear legal right to the performance of such act.”  In the case at bar, such factors were
wanting. Nowhere was it found in the ordinance, or in any Law or rule that the
construction of such building outside the Rizal Park was prohibited if the building was
within the background sightline or vision of the Rizal Monument.  Thus, the petition was
lacking of merit and, thus dismissed.