Scribd
Upload
60 views

Knights of Rizal V. Dmci

The Supreme Court ruled that the Torre de Manila condominium project was not a nuisance per se that could be summarily abated. While the Knights of Rizal argued the building would obstruct views of the Rizal Monument, the Court found that the project was located outside of Luneta Park, too far away to have a direct effect on public health or safety. Further, DMCI had acquired the necessary permits from the local government for the condominium, which is a common building type in Manila, so it could not be considered a per se nuisance under the law.

Uploaded by

Steve Uy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
60 views

Knights of Rizal V. Dmci

The Supreme Court ruled that the Torre de Manila condominium project was not a nuisance per se that could be summarily abated. While the Knights of Rizal argued the building would obstruct views of the Rizal Monument, the Court found that the project was located outside of Luneta Park, too far away to have a direct effect on public health or safety. Further, DMCI had acquired the necessary permits from the local government for the condominium, which is a common building type in Manila, so it could not be considered a per se nuisance under the law.

Uploaded by

Steve Uy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

KNIGHTS OF RIZAL v.

DMCI

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. They acquired the
barangay clearance and zonal permits as well as building permits to commence the said
condominium project. A resolution was passed to temporary suspend the building permit of
construction, citing that “ruin the line of sight of the Rizal Shrine from the frontal Roxas Boulevard
vantage point.” The DMCI contended that “no legal justification for the temporary suspension of
building permit since it lies outside the Luneta Park and was too far to be a repulsive distraction
or objectionable effect on the artistic and historical significance.” Knights of Rizal an NGO, 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 Torre de Manila is a nuisance per se.
Held: No, The Supreme Court 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 KOR
claims that the Torre de Manila is a nuisance per se that deserves to be summarily abated even
without judicial proceedings. 87 However, during the Oral Arguments, counsel for the KOR argued
that the KOR now believes that the Torre de Manila is a nuisance per accidens and not a
nuisance per se. Thy Court recognizes two kinds of nuisances. The first, nuisance per se, is on
"recognized as a nuisance under any and all circumstances, because it constitutes a direct menace
to public health or safety, and, for that reason, may be abated summarily under the undefined law
of necessity." It can easily be gleaned that the Torre de Manila is not a nuisance per se. The Torre
de Manila project cannot be considered as a "direct menace to I public health or safety." Not only
is a condominium project commonplace in the City of Manila, DMCI-PDI has, according to the
proper government agencies, complied with health and safety standards set by law. DMCI-PDI
has been granted the following permits and clearances prior to starting the project. The Court
cannot simply accept these conditions and circumstances as established facts as the KOR would
have us do in this case. 99 The KOR itself concedes that the question of whether the Torre de
Manila is a nuisance per accidens is a question of fact.

You might also like