Knights of Rizal vs. DMCI Homes, Inc.

There is no law prohibiting the construction of a building outside the boundaries of a historic site or facility, even if such building affects the background view, vista, or sightline of a heritage property; mandamus will not lie to compel the City of Manila to stop such construction absent a clear legal duty and a showing of grave abuse of discretion.

The Rizal Monument in Luneta Park, Manila, is a national cultural treasure and historical landmark honoring Jose Rizal, the Philippine national hero. In 2011, DMCI Project Developers, Inc. acquired a lot approximately 870 meters from the Rizal Monument and began constructing Torre de Manila, a 49-storey condominium building. The Knights of Rizal, a civic organization dedicated to propagating Rizal's teachings, opposed the project, claiming it would desecrate the monument by obstructing its sightline and visual dominance.

• Original Filing: Petition for Injunction with Applications for Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction filed directly with the SC on 12 September 2014
• SC Resolution: On 25 November 2014, the SC resolved to treat the petition as one for mandamus and impleaded the City of Manila, NCCA, National Museum, and NHCP as public respondents
• TRO Issued: The SC issued a Temporary Restraining Order on 16 June 2015
• SC Action: Case decided on the merits by the En Banc

The Knights of Rizal (KOR) is a civic, patriotic, cultural, non-partisan, non-sectarian, and non-profit organization created under Republic Act No. 646, with purposes including studying Rizal's teachings, promoting patriotism, and organizing programs commemorating Rizal's nativity and martyrdom. On 1 September 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 the former Manila Jai-Alai Building and Adamson University, which was earmarked for the construction of the Torre de Manila condominium project.

On 2 April 2012, DMCI-PDI secured its Barangay Clearance to start construction. It then obtained a Zoning Permit from the City of Manila's City Planning and Development Office (CPDO) on 19 June 2012. On 5 July 2012, the City of Manila's Office of the Building Official granted DMCI-PDI a Building Permit, allowing it to build a "Forty-Nine (49) Storey w/ Basement & 2 penthouse Level Res'l./Condominium" on the property. On 24 July 2012, the City Council of Manila issued Resolution No. 121 enjoining the Office of the Building Official to temporarily suspend the Building Permit of DMCI-PDI, citing that the Torre de Manila Condominium, upon completion, would rise high above the back of the national monument, dwarf the statue of Rizal, and ruin the line of sight of the Rizal Shrine from the frontal Roxas Boulevard vantage point.

Building Official Melvin Q. Balagot sought the opinion of the City of Manila's City Legal Officer on whether he was bound to comply with Resolution No. 121. In his letter dated 12 September 2012, City Legal Officer Renato G. Dela Cruz stated that there was "no legal justification for the temporary suspension of the Building Permit issued in favor of DMCI-PDI" since the construction "lies outside the Luneta Park" and is "simply too far to 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 was no showing that the area of the subject property had been officially declared as an anthropological or archeological area, nor categorically designated by the National Historical Institute as a heritage zone, a cultural property, a historical landmark, or even a national treasure.

Subsequently, both the City of Manila and DMCI-PDI sought the opinion of the National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP) on the matter. In letters dated 6 November 2012 and 7 November 2012, the NHCP maintained that the Torre de Manila project site is outside the boundaries of the Rizal Park and well to the rear of the Rizal Monument, and thus cannot possibly obstruct the frontal view of the National Monument. On 26 November 2013, following an online petition against the Torre de Manila project that garnered about 7,800 signatures, the City Council of Manila issued Resolution No. 146, reiterating its directive in Resolution No. 121 enjoining the City of Manila's building officials to temporarily suspend DMCI-PDI's Building Permit.

In a letter to Mayor Joseph Ejercito Estrada dated 18 December 2013, DMCI-PDI President Alfredo R. Austria sought clarification on the controversy surrounding its Zoning Permit, stating that since the CPDO granted its Zoning Permit, DMCI-PDI continued with the application for the Building Permit, which was granted, and did not deem it necessary to go through the process of appealing to the local zoning board. On 23 December 2013, the Manila Zoning Board of Adjustments and Appeals (MZBAA) issued Zoning Board Resolution No. 06, Series of 2013, recommending the approval of DMCI-PDI's application for variance, noting that the Torre de Manila project exceeded the prescribed maximum Percentage of Land Occupancy (PLO) and exceeded the prescribed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) as stipulated in Article V, Section 17 of City Ordinance No. 8119, but still recommended approval subject to five conditions. After some clarification sought by DMCI-PDI, the MZBAA issued Zoning Board Resolution No. 06-A, Series of 2013, on 8 January 2014, amending condition (c) in the earlier resolution. On 16 January 2014, the City Council of Manila issued Resolution No. 5, Series of 2014, adopting Zoning Board Resolution Nos. 06 and 06-A, ratifying and confirming all previously issued permits, licenses, and approvals issued by the City of Manila for Torre de Manila.

On 12 September 2014, the KOR filed a Petition for Injunction seeking a temporary restraining order and later a permanent injunction against the construction of DMCI-PDI's Torre de Manila condominium project, arguing that the subject matter is one of transcendental importance involving the desecration of the Rizal Monument. The KOR asserted that the completed Torre de Manila structure would 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. The KOR argued that the Rizal Monument, as a National Treasure, is entitled to full protection of the law, and that the project is a nuisance per se because the despoliation of the sight view of the Rizal Monument annoys or offends the senses of every Filipino who honors the memory of Jose Rizal. The KOR also claimed that the Torre de Manila project violates the NHCP's Guidelines on Monuments Honoring National Heroes and the Venice Charter, and that DMCI-PDI's construction was commenced and continues in bad faith and in violation of the City of Manila's zoning ordinance.

DMCI-PDI argued that the SC has no jurisdiction over the action, that the KOR has no legal standing, that the Torre de Manila is not a nuisance per se, that it acted in good faith in constructing the project, and that the KOR is not entitled to injunctive relief. The City of Manila argued that mandamus cannot issue because no property or substantive rights in favor of the KOR are being affected, and that the issuance and revocation of a Building Permit is a discretionary act. The City of Manila also admitted that the Zoning Permit issued to DMCI-PDI was in breach of certain provisions of City Ordinance No. 8119, but maintained that the deficiency is procedural in nature and pertains mostly to the failure of DMCI-PDI to comply with the stipulations that allow an excess in the FAR provisions.

• The subject matter of the 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 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.
• 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.
• The project is a nuisance per se because the despoliation of the sight view of the Rizal Monument is a situation that annoys or offends the senses of every Filipino who honors the memory of Jose Rizal, and deserves to be abated summarily even without need of judicial proceeding.
• 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 their surroundings.
• The project violates the country's commitment under the International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (Venice Charter) .
• DMCI-PDI's construction was commenced and continues in bad faith, and is in violation of the City of Manila's zoning ordinance.

DMCI-PDI:

• The SC has no original jurisdiction over actions for injunction; even assuming concurrent jurisdiction, the petition should have been filed with the RTC under the doctrine of hierarchy of courts and because the petition involves questions of fact.
• The KOR's petition is in actuality an opposition or appeal from the exemption granted by the City of Manila's MZBAA, a matter not within the SC's jurisdiction; the proper forum should be the MZBAA, and should the KOR fail there, it should appeal to the HLURB.
• Since the Rizal Monument has been declared a National Treasure, the power to issue a cease and desist order is lodged with the appropriate cultural agency under Section 25 of Republic Act No. 10066.
• The KOR availed of the wrong remedy since an action for injunction is not the proper remedy for abatement of a nuisance.
• The KOR has no standing to institute this proceeding because it is not a real party in interest; the purposes of the KOR as a public corporation do not include the preservation of the Rizal Monument as a cultural or historical heritage site.
• The Torre de Manila is not a nuisance per se; DMCI-PDI obtained all the necessary permits, licenses, clearances, and certificates for its construction.
• DMCI-PDI did not act in bad faith when it started construction; bad faith cannot be attributed to it since it was within the lawful exercise of its rights.
• The KOR has failed to establish a clear and unmistakable right to enjoin the construction of Torre de Manila, much less request its demolition.

City of Manila:

• The writ of mandamus cannot issue considering that no property or substantive rights in favor of the KOR is being affected or entitled to judicial protection.
• The issuance and revocation of a Building Permit falls under the category of a discretionary act or duty performed by the proper officer, while the remedy of mandamus is available only to compel the performance of a ministerial duty.
• The construction of the Torre de Manila did not violate any existing law, since the edifice is well behind (some 789 meters away) the line of sight of the Rizal Monument.
• The City of Manila's prevailing Land Use and Zoning Ordinance allows an adjustment in Floor Area Ratios through the MZBAA subject to further final approval of the City Council.
• The Zoning Permit issued to DMCI-PDI was in breach of certain provisions of City Ordinance No. 8119, but the deficiency is procedural in nature and pertains mostly to the failure of DMCI-PDI to comply with the stipulations that allow an excess in the FAR provisions.

• Existence of Legal Prohibition: Whether there is a law prohibiting the construction of the Torre de Manila due to its effect on the background view, vista, sightline, or setting of the Rizal Monument.
• Applicability of Ordinance No. 8119: Whether Sections 47 and 48 of Ordinance No. 8119 disallow the construction of a building outside the boundaries of a historic site or facility where such building may affect the background of a historic site.
• Applicability of RA 10066: Whether Republic Act No. 10066 (National Cultural Heritage Act of 2009) applies to the Torre de Manila condominium project.
• Mandamus Against City of Manila: Whether mandamus lies against the City of Manila to stop the construction of the Torre de Manila.
• Nuisance Per Se: Whether the Torre de Manila is a nuisance per se.
• Estoppel: Whether the KOR is estopped from questioning the Torre de Manila construction.
• TRO: Whether the Temporary Restraining Order should be lifted.

• Existence of Legal Prohibition: No. There is no law prohibiting the construction of the Torre de Manila due to its effect on the background view, vista, sightline, or setting of the Rizal Monument. The principle is that what is not expressly or impliedly prohibited by law may be done, except when the act is contrary to morals, customs, and public order.

• Applicability of Ordinance No. 8119: No. Sections 47 and 48 of Ordinance No. 8119 do not disallow the construction of a building outside the boundaries of a historic site or facility. Section 47 regulates the development of historic sites and facilities themselves, while Section 48 regulates site performance standards but does not specifically protect the view of dominance of historical sites.

• Applicability of RA 10066: No. Republic Act No. 10066 protects the physical integrity of heritage property or building, which refers to the structure itself, and does not mention that another project, building, or property, not itself a heritage property or building, may be the subject of a cease and desist order when it adversely affects the background view, vista, or sightline of a heritage property or building.

• Mandamus Against City of Manila: No. Mandamus does not lie against the City of Manila because there is no clear legal duty on the part of the City of Manila to consider the provisions of Ordinance No. 8119 for applications for permits to build outside the protected areas of the Rizal Park. The issuance of permits and variances involves discretionary acts, and there is no showing of grave abuse of discretion.

• Nuisance Per Se: No. The Torre de Manila is not a nuisance per se because it cannot be considered as a direct menace to public health or safety, and DMCI-PDI has complied with health and safety standards set by law.

• Estoppel: Yes. The KOR is estopped from questioning the construction of the Torre de Manila project because it itself came up with the idea to build a structure right behind the Rizal Monument that would dwarf the Rizal Monument in the mid-1950s.

• TRO: The Temporary Restraining Order must be lifted because the legal rights of the KOR are not well-defined, clear, and certain, and the petition for mandamus must be dismissed.

Existence of Legal Prohibition: The SC applied the principle from Manila Electric Company v. Public Service Commission that "what is not expressly or impliedly prohibited by law may be done, except when the act is contrary to morals, customs and public order." The SC found no allegation or proof that the Torre de Manila project is contrary to morals, customs, and public order or that it brings harm, danger, or hazard to the community. On the contrary, the City of Manila determined that DMCI-PDI complied with the standards set under pertinent laws and local ordinances. The SC emphasized that there is no law prohibiting the construction of the Torre de Manila due to its effect on the background view, vista, sightline, or setting of the Rizal Monument.

Applicability of Ordinance No. 8119: The SC examined Sections 47 and 48 of Ordinance No. 8119. Section 47 regulates the "development of historic sites and facilities" and expressly states that "the following shall guide the development of historic sites and facilities." The SC held that a guide simply sets a direction or gives an instruction to be followed by property owners and developers in order to conserve and enhance a property's heritage values. Section 48 regulates "large commercial signage and/or pylon" and site performance standards. The SC found that there is nothing in Sections 47 and 48 that disallows the construction of a building outside the boundaries of a historic site or facility, where such building may affect the background of a historic site. The Torre de Manila stands 870 meters outside and to the rear of the Rizal Monument and cannot possibly obstruct the front view of the Rizal Monument. Likewise, the Torre de Manila is not in an area that has been declared as an anthropological or archeological area or in an area designated as a heritage zone, cultural property, historical landmark, or a national treasure by the NHCP.

Applicability of RA 10066: The SC held that Republic Act No. 10066, or the National Cultural Heritage Act of 2009, empowers the National Commission for Culture and the Arts and other cultural agencies to issue a cease and desist order "when the physical integrity of the national cultural treasures or important cultural properties [is] found to be in danger of destruction or significant alteration from its original state." The law declares that the State should protect the "physical integrity" of the heritage property or building if there is "danger of destruction or significant alteration from its original state." Physical integrity refers to the structure itself - how strong and sound the structure is. The same law does not mention that another project, building, or property, not itself a heritage property or building, may be the subject of a cease and desist order when it adversely affects the background view, vista, or sightline of a heritage property or building. Thus, Republic Act No. 10066 cannot apply to the Torre de Manila condominium project.

Mandamus Against City of Manila: The SC held that mandamus only issues when there is a clear legal duty imposed upon the office or the officer sought to be compelled to perform an act, and when the party seeking mandamus has a clear legal right to the performance of such act. In the present case, nowhere is it found in Ordinance No. 8119 or in any law, ordinance, or rule that the construction of a building outside the Rizal Park is prohibited if the building is within the background sightline or view of the Rizal Monument. Thus, there is no legal duty on the part of the City of Manila to consider the standards set under Ordinance No. 8119 in relation to the applications of DMCI-PDI for the Torre de Manila since under the ordinance these standards can never be applied outside the boundaries of Rizal Park. While the Rizal Park has been declared a National Historical Site, the area where Torre de Manila is being built is a privately-owned property that is not part of the Rizal Park that has been declared as a National Heritage Site in 1995, and the Torre de Manila area is in fact well-beyond the Rizal Park, according to NHCP Chairperson Dr. Maria Serena I. Diokno. Neither has the area of the Torre de Manila been designated as a heritage zone, a cultural property, a historical landmark, or even a national treasure. The SC also held that to declare that the City of Manila failed to consider the standards under Ordinance No. 8119 would involve making a finding of fact, which requires notice, hearing, and the submission of evidence to ascertain compliance with the law or regulation. In such a case, it is the Regional Trial Court which has the jurisdiction to hear the case, receive evidence, make a proper finding of fact, and determine whether the Torre de Manila project properly complied with the standards set by the ordinance. The SC further held that the exercise of its extraordinary certiorari power is limited to actual cases and controversies that necessarily involve a violation of the Constitution or the determination of the constitutionality or validity of a governmental act or issuance. Specific violation of a statute that does not raise the issue of constitutionality or validity of the statute cannot, as a rule, be the subject of the SC's direct exercise of its expanded certiorari power. Thus, the KOR's recourse lies with other judicial remedies or proceedings allowed under the Rules of Court.

Nuisance Per Se: The SC applied Article 694 of the Civil Code, which 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 SC recognized two kinds of nuisances: nuisance per se, which is recognized as a nuisance under any and all circumstances because it constitutes a direct menace to public health or safety, and may be abated summarily under the undefined law of necessity; and nuisance per accidens, 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. The SC held that the Torre de Manila is not a nuisance per se because it 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-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: (1) Height Clearance Permit from the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines; (2) Development Permit from the HLURB; (3) Zoning Certification from the HLURB; (4) Certificate of Environmental Compliance Commitment from the Environment Management Bureau of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources; (5) Barangay Clearance; (6) Zoning Permit; (7) Building Permit; and (8) Electrical and Mechanical Permit. Later, DMCI-PDI also obtained the right to build under a variance recommended by the MZBAA and granted by the City Council of Manila. Thus, there can be no doubt that the Torre de Manila project is not a nuisance per se. On the other hand, the KOR now claims that the Torre de Manila is a nuisance per accidens. By definition, a nuisance per accidens is determined based on its surrounding conditions and circumstances. These conditions and circumstances must be well established, not merely alleged. The SC cannot simply accept these conditions and circumstances as established facts as the KOR would have us do in this case. The KOR itself concedes that the question of whether the Torre de Manila is a nuisance per accidens is a question of fact. The authority to decide when a nuisance exists is an authority to find facts, to estimate their force, and to apply rules of law to the case thus made. The SC is no such authority. It is not a trier of facts. It cannot simply take the allegations in the petition and accept these as facts, more so in this case where these allegations are contested by the respondents. The task to receive and evaluate evidence is lodged with the trial courts. The question, then, of whether the Torre de Manila project is a nuisance per accidens must be settled after due proceedings brought before the proper Regional Trial Court. The KOR cannot circumvent the process in the guise of protecting national culture and heritage.

Estoppel: The SC held that the KOR is now estopped from questioning the construction of the Torre de Manila project. The KOR itself came up with the idea to build a structure right behind the Rizal Monument that would dwarf the Rizal Monument. In the mid-1950s, the Jose Rizal National Centennial Commission (JRNCC) formulated a plan to build an Educational Center within the Rizal Park. In July 1955, the KOR proposed the inclusion of a national theater on the site of the Educational Center. The JRNCC adopted the proposal. The following year, a law - Republic Act No. 1427 - authorized the establishment of the Jose Rizal National Cultural Shrine consisting of a national theater, a national museum, and a national library on a single site. To be built on the open space right behind the 12.7 meter high Rizal Monument were: the KOR's proposed national theater, standing 29.25 meters high and 286 meters in distance from the Rizal Monument; the national library, standing 25.6 meters high and 180 meters in distance from the Rizal Monument, with its rear along San Luis Street (now T.M. Kalaw Street); and facing it, the national museum, at 19.5 meters high and 190 meters in distance from the Rizal Monument, with its back along P. Burgos Street. However, several sectors voiced their objections to the construction for various reasons. Among them, the need to preserve the open space of the park, the high cost of construction, the desecration of the park's hallowed grounds, and the fact that the proposed cultural center including the 29.25 meter high national theater proposed by the KOR would dwarf the 12.7 meter high Rizal Monument. The JRNCC revised the plan and only the National Library - which still stands today - was built. According to the NHCP, the KOR even proposed to build a Rizal Center on the park as recently as 2013. The proposal was disapproved by the NHCP and the Department of Tourism. Surely, as noble as the KOR's intentions were, its proposed center would have dwarfed the Rizal Monument with its size and proximity. In contrast, the Torre de Manila is located well outside the Rizal Park, and to the rear of the Rizal Monument - approximately 870 meters from the Rizal Monument and 30 meters from the edge of Rizal Park. It is a basic principle that "one who seeks equity and justice must come to court with clean hands." In Jenosa v. Delariarte, the SC reiterated that he who seeks equity must do equity, and he who comes into equity must come with clean hands. This "signifies that a litigant may be denied relief by a court of equity on the ground that his conduct has been inequitable, unfair and dishonest, or fraudulent, or deceitful as to the controversy in issue." Thus, the KOR, having earlier proposed a national theater a mere 286 meters in distance from the back of the Rizal Monument that would have dwarfed the Rizal Monument, comes to this Court with unclean hands. It is now precluded from "seeking any equitable refuge" from the Court. The KOR's petition should be dismissed on this ground alone.

TRO: The SC held that injunctive reliefs are meant to preserve substantive rights and prevent further injury until final adjudication on the merits of the case. In the present case, since the legal rights of the KOR are not well-defined, clear, and certain, the petition for mandamus must be dismissed and the TRO lifted. The general rule is that courts will not disturb the findings of administrative agencies when they are supported by substantial evidence. In this case, DMCI-PDI already acquired vested rights in the various permits, licenses, or even variances it had applied for in order to build a 49-storey building which is, and had been, allowed by the City of Manila's zoning ordinance. As the SC has time and again held, courts generally hesitate to review discretionary decisions or actions of administrative agencies in the absence of proof that such decisions or actions were arrived at with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In JRS Business Corp. v. Montesa, the SC held that mandamus is the proper remedy if it could be shown that there was neglect on the part of a tribunal in the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty, or there was an unlawful exclusion of a party from the use and enjoyment of a right to which he is clearly entitled. Only specific legal rights may be enforced by mandamus if they are clear and certain. If the legal rights of the petitioner are not well-defined, definite, clear, and certain, the petition must be dismissed. Stated otherwise, the writ never issues in doubtful cases. It neither confers powers nor imposes duties. It is simply a command to exercise a power already possessed and to perform a duty already imposed.

• What is not expressly or impliedly prohibited by law may be done — This principle, from Manila Electric Company v. Public Service Commission, holds that the freedom to act can be curtailed only through law, except when the act is contrary to morals, customs, and public order. The SC applied this principle in finding that there is no law prohibiting the construction of the Torre de Manila due to its effect on the background view of the Rizal Monument.

• Nuisance Per Se vs. Nuisance Per Accidens — A nuisance per se is one recognized as a nuisance under any and all circumstances because it constitutes a direct menace to public health or safety, and may be abated summarily under the undefined law of necessity. A nuisance per accidens 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. The SC applied this doctrine in holding that the Torre de Manila is not a nuisance per se.

• Requisites for Mandamus — Mandamus only issues when there is a clear legal duty imposed upon the office or the officer sought to be compelled to perform an act, and when the party seeking mandamus has a clear legal right to the performance of such act. The writ never issues in doubtful cases. It neither confers powers nor imposes duties. It is simply a command to exercise a power already possessed and to perform a duty already imposed. The SC applied this doctrine in dismissing the petition for mandamus.

• Clean Hands Doctrine — He who seeks equity must do equity, and he who comes into equity must come with clean hands. This signifies that a litigant may be denied relief by a court of equity on the ground that his conduct has been inequitable, unfair and dishonest, or fraudulent, or deceitful as to the controversy in issue. The SC applied this doctrine in holding that the KOR is estopped from questioning the Torre de Manila construction because it itself proposed a structure behind the Rizal Monument in the 1950s.

• Physical Integrity under RA 10066 — The National Cultural Heritage Act of 2009 protects the "physical integrity" of heritage property or building, which refers to the structure itself - how strong and sound the structure is. The law does not mention that another project, building, or property, not itself a heritage property or building, may be the subject of a cease and desist order when it adversely affects the background view, vista, or sightline of a heritage property or building. The SC applied this doctrine in holding that RA 10066 cannot apply to the Torre de Manila condominium project.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion — The SC can only exercise its extraordinary certiorari power if the City of Manila, in issuing the required permits and licenses, gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The SC found that neither the majority nor minority opinion found that the City of Manila committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the permits and licenses to DMCI-PDI.

• Hierarchy of Courts — As a rule, cases where the question of constitutionality of a governmental action is raised are filed with the lowest court with jurisdiction over the subject matter. The judicial review that the courts undertake requires: (1) there be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power; (2) the person challenging the act must have standing to challenge; he must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement; (3) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity; and (4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case. The SC applied this doctrine in holding that the KOR's recourse lies with other judicial remedies or proceedings allowed under the Rules of Court.

• Pro Hac Vice Decision — A pro hac vice decision means a specific decision does not constitute a precedent because the decision is for the specific case only, not to be followed in other cases. A pro hac vice decision violates statutory law - Article 8 of the Civil Code - which states that "judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines." The decision of the SC in this case cannot be pro hac vice because by mandate of the law every decision of the SC forms part of the legal system of the Philippines. If another case comes up with the same facts as the present case, that case must be decided in the same way as this case to comply with the constitutional mandate of equal protection of the law. Thus, a pro hac vice decision also violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

• "There is no law prohibiting the construction of the Torre de Manila due to its effect on the background 'view, vista, sightline, or setting' of the Rizal Monument." — This is the core ruling of the SC, establishing that no legal prohibition exists against the construction of the Torre de Manila.

• "What is not expressly or impliedly prohibited by law may be done, except when the act is contrary to morals, customs and public order." — This principle from Manila Electric Company v. Public Service Commission is fundamental in a democratic society, to protect the weak against the strong, the minority against the majority, and the individual citizen against the government.

• "Physical integrity refers to the structure itself - how strong and sound the structure is. The same law does not mention that another project, building, or property, not itself a heritage property or building, may be the subject of a cease and desist order when it adversely affects the background view, vista, or sightline of a heritage property or building." — This passage clarifies the scope of RA 10066 and why it does not apply to the Torre de Manila.

• "Mandamus does not lie against the City of Manila." — The SC's ruling on the propriety of mandamus as a remedy in this case.

• "It is a basic principle that 'one who seeks equity and justice must come to court with clean hands.'" — The SC's basis for holding that the KOR is estopped from questioning the Torre de Manila construction.

• "The Rizal Monument is expressly against Rizal's own wishes. That Rizal's statue now stands facing West towards Manila Bay, with Rizal's back to the East, adds salt to the wound. If we continue the present orientation of Rizal's statue, with Rizal facing West, we would be like the Spanish captain who refused Rizal's request to die facing the rising sun in the East. On the other hand, if Rizal's statue is made to face East, as Rizal had desired when he was about to be shot, the background - the blue sky above Manila Bay would forever be clear of obstruction, and we would be faithful to Rizal's dying wish." — This passage from the SC's "A Final Word" reflects on Rizal's own wishes and the irony of the Rizal Monument's orientation.

• Manila Electric Company v. Public Service Commission, 60 Phil. 658 (1934) — Controlling precedent. The SC cited this case for the principle that "what is not expressly or impliedly prohibited by law may be done, except when the act is contrary to morals, customs and public order."

• Association of Medical Clinics for Overseas Workers, Inc. v. GCC Approved Medical Centers Association, Inc., G.R. No. 207132, 6 December 2016 — Followed. The SC cited this case for the requisites of judicial review, including the hierarchy of courts principle.

• De Castro v. Salas, 34 Phil. 818 (1916) — Followed. The SC cited this case for the rule that mandamus will not issue to control the discretion of an officer or a court when honestly exercised and when such power and authority is not abused.

• JRS Business Corp. v. Montesa, 131 Phil. 719 (1968) — Followed. The SC cited this case for the rule that mandamus is the proper remedy if it could be shown that there was neglect on the part of a tribunal in the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty, or there was an unlawful exclusion of a party from the use and enjoyment of a right to which he is clearly entitled.

• Jenosa v. Delariarte, 644 Phil. 565 (2010) — Followed. The SC cited this case for the clean hands doctrine, which signifies that a litigant may be denied relief by a court of equity on the ground that his conduct has been inequitable, unfair and dishonest, or fraudulent, or deceitful as to the controversy in issue.

• Aquino v. Municipality of Malay, Aklan, G.R. No. 211356, 29 September 2014, 737 SCRA 145 — Followed. The SC cited this case for the definition of nuisance per se and nuisance per accidens.

• Iloilo Ice and Cold Storage Co. v. Municipal Council of Iloilo, 24 Phil. 471 (1913) — Followed. The SC cited this case for the rule that the authority to decide when a nuisance exists is an authority to find facts, to estimate their force, and to apply rules of law to the case thus made.

• Lianga Bay Logging Co., Inc. v. Enage, 236 Phil. 84 (1987) — Followed. The SC cited this case for the rule that the Court cannot substitute its judgment for that of said officials who are in a better position to consider and weigh the same in the light of the authority specifically vested in them by law.

• Board of Medical Education v. Alfonso, 257 Phil. 311 (1989) — Followed. The SC cited this case for the rule that the Court has no supervisory power over the proceedings and actions of the administrative departments of the government.

• Angchangco, Jr. v. Ombudsman, 335 Phil. 766 (1997) — Followed. The SC cited this case for the rule that the power of the Court in mandamus petitions does not extend to direct the exercise of judgment or discretion in a particular way or the retraction or reversal of an action already taken in the exercise of either.

• Zamora v. Wright, 53 Phil. 613 (1929) — Followed. The SC cited this case for the rule that only specific legal rights may be enforced by mandamus if they are clear and certain.

• Sanson v. Barrios, 63 Phil. 198 (1936) — Followed. The SC cited this case for the rule that the writ of mandamus never issues in doubtful cases.

• Pascua v. Tuason, 108 Phil. 69 (1960) — Followed. The SC cited this case for the rule that mandamus may only be issued to enforce a clear and certain legal right.

• Case v. Board of Health, 24 Phil. 250 (1913) — Followed. The SC cited this case for the rule that the Court does not intervene in discretionary acts of the executive department in the absence of grave abuse of discretion.

• Article 1306, Civil Code — The contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. The SC cited this provision in holding that acts not contrary to morals, good customs, public order, or public policy are allowed if also not contrary to law.

• Article 1409(1), Civil Code — The following contracts are inexistent and void from the beginning: (1) Those whose cause, object or purpose is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy. The SC cited this provision in holding that acts not contrary to morals, good customs, public order, or public policy are allowed if also not contrary to law.

• Article 694, 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 SC applied this provision in holding that the Torre de Manila is not a nuisance per se.

• Section 15, Article XIV, 1987 Constitution — The State shall conserve, promote and popularize the nation's historical and cultural heritage and resources. The SC cited this provision in holding that it is not self-executory and that Congress passed laws dealing with the preservation and conservation of our cultural heritage.

• Section 25, Republic Act No. 10066 — Power to Issue a Cease and Desist Order. When the physical integrity of the national cultural treasures or important cultural properties are found to be in danger of destruction or significant alteration from its original state, the appropriate cultural agency shall immediately issue a Cease and Desist Order ex parte suspending all activities that will affect the cultural property. The SC cited this provision in holding that RA 10066 cannot apply to the Torre de Manila condominium project.

• Section 1, Article III, 1987 Constitution — No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. The SC cited this provision in holding that the dispossession of property, or in this case the stoppage of the construction of a building in one's own property, would violate substantive due process.

• Section 1, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution — Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. The SC cited this provision in holding that it can only exercise its extraordinary certiorari power if the City of Manila, in issuing the required permits and licenses, gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

• Section 47, Ordinance No. 8119 — Historical Preservation and Conservation Standards. Historic sites and facilities shall be conserved and preserved. The following shall guide the development of historic sites and facilities. The SC cited this provision in holding that it only serves as a guide and does not disallow the construction of a building outside the boundaries of a historic site or facility.

• Section 48, Ordinance No. 8119 — Site Performance Standards. The City considers it in the public interest that all projects are designed and developed in a safe, efficient and aesthetically pleasing manner. The SC cited this provision in holding that it regulates "large commercial signage and/or pylon" and does not disallow the construction of a building outside the boundaries of a historic site or facility.

• Article 8, Civil Code — Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines. The SC cited this provision in holding that a pro hac vice decision violates statutory law.

• Sereno, C.J. — Concurred
• Bersamin, J. — Concurred
• Del Castillo, J. — Concurred
• Reyes, J. — Concurred
• Velasco, Jr., J. — Concurred (with Concurring Opinion)
• Peralta, J. — Concurred (with Separate Concurring Opinion)
• Perlas-Bernabe, J. — Concurred (with Separate Concurring Opinion)
• Leonen, J. — Concurred (with Separate Opinion)
• Tijam, J. — Concurred (with Separate Concurring Opinion)

• Justice Jardeleza (Dissenting) — Justice Jardeleza dissented, arguing that while Sections 15 and 16, Article XIV of the Constitution are not self-executing, there exists local legislation (Ordinance No. 8119) that provides a clear and specific duty on the part of the City of Manila to regulate development projects insofar as these may adversely affect the view, vista, sightline, or setting of a cultural property within the city. He argued that Sections 45, 47, 48, and 53 of Ordinance No. 8119 contain specific, operable norms and standards that implement the constitutional mandate to conserve historical and cultural heritage and resources. He proposed that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the City of Manila to re-evaluate with dispatch the permits and variance issued in favor of DMCI-PDI's Torre de Manila project, determine applicability and/or compliance with the standards under Sections 45, 53, 47 and 48, and the provisions under Section 60 (in relation to the grant of a variance), of Ordinance No. 8119, and grant the appropriate reliefs/sanctions under the law. He also argued that the KOR has legal standing to file the case, that direct recourse to the SC was proper due to the transcendental importance of the issues involved, and that mandamus lies against the City of Manila because it failed to consider its duties under Ordinance No. 8119 when it issued permits in DMCI-PDI's favor.

• Justice Leonardo-De Castro (Dissenting) — Joined the Dissent of Justice Jardeleza.

• Justice Caguioa (Dissenting) — Joined the Dissent of Justice Jardeleza.

• Justice Martires (Dissenting) — Joined the Dissent of Justice Jardeleza.

• Justice Mendoza (Dissenting) — Joined the Separate Opinion of Justice Jardeleza.