CASE DIGEST
KNIGHTS OF RIZAL vs. DMCI HOMES, INC
G.R. No. 213948
April 18, 2017
CARPIO J.
DOCTRINE: Nuisance Peraccidens, is that which "depends upon certain
conditions and circumstances, and its existence being a question of fact, it
cannot be abated without due hearing thereon in a tribunal authorized to
decide whether such a thing in law constitutes a nuisance.
FACTS:
DMCI Project Developers, Inc. acquired a 7,716.60-square meter lot in the
City of Manila, located near Taft Avenue, Ermita, beside the former Manila
Jai-Alai Building and Adamson University. The lot was earmarked for the
construction of DMCI-PDI's Torre de Manila condominium project. They
secured all the necessary permits including Complete the Barangay
Clearance and Building Permit.
The City Council of Manila issued a Resolution enjoining the Office of the
Building Official to temporarily suspend the Building Permit of DMCI-PDI,
citing among others, that "the Torre de Manila Condominium, based on
their development plans, upon completion, will rise up high above the back
of the national monument, to clearly dwarf the statue of our hero, and with
such towering heights, would certainly ruin the line of sight of the Rizal
Shrine from the frontal Roxas Boulevard vantage point.
The City Legal Officer Renato G. Dela Cruz stated that there is no legal
justification for the temporary suspension of the Building Permit issued in
favor of DMCI since the construction lies outside the Luneta Park and is
simply too far to I be a repulsive distraction or have an objectionable effect
on the artistic and historical significance of the Rizal Monument. He also
pointed out that there is no showing that the area of subject property has
been officially declared as an anthropological or archeological area. Neither
has it been categorically designated by the National Historical Institute as
a heritage zone, a cultural property, a historical landmark or even a national
treasure.
Following an online petition against the Torre de Manila project that
garnered about 7,800 signatures, the City Council of Manila issued
Resolution, reiterating its directive in the Resolution enjoining the City of
Manila's building officials to temporarily suspend DMCI Building Permit.
The City Council issued a resolution that ratifies and confirms all previously
issued permits, licenses and approvals issued by the City [Council] of
Manila for Torre de Manila.
The petitioner Knights Of Rizal contends that the project is a nuisance per
se because the despoliation of the sight view of the Rizal Monument 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 I to be abated summarily, even without need
of judicial proceeding
ISSUE: Whether or not TORRE DE MANILA IS NOT A NUISANCE PER
SE.
RULING: NO. Torre de Manila is Not a Nuisance Per Se.
Article 694 of the Civil Code defines a nuisance as any act, omission,
establishment, business, condition of property, or anything else which: (1)
injures or endangers the health or safety of others; (2) annoys or offends
the senses; (3) shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality; (4)
obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or
street, or any body of water; or (5) hinders or impairs the use of property.
The first, nuisance perse, 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."
The second, nuisance peraccidens, is that which "depends upon certain
conditions and circumstances, and its existence being a question of fact, it
cannot be abated without due hearing thereon in a tribunal authorized to
decide whether such a thing in law constitutes a nuisance.
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
public health or safety. Not only is a condominium project commonplace in
the City of Manila, DMCI has, according to the proper government
agencies, complied with health and safety standards set by law.
Digest By:
Atty. Ruthwin M. Trinidad J.D.
