You are on page 1of 1

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.