Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
FACTS:
The Supreme Court (SC), in its en banc session on April 25, 2017,
dismissed the petition against the construction of 49-storey high-
rise condominium project Torre de Manila, located along Taft
Avenue, Manila, giving the green light for the resumption of the
construction for the P3.6-billion project.
Voting 9-6, the high court junked the petition filed by the Order of
the Knights of Rizal in September 2014, and lifted the temporary
restraining order (TRO) it had issued on June 16,2015, which halted
construction.
The Supreme Court said, the court has no jurisdiction over the
subject matter; the petitioners (OKOR) have no standing to sue; and
they (petitioners) stand to suffer no injury. Furthermore, the court
also found that there is no law that prohibits the construction of the
challenged Torre de Manila.
The Knights of Rizal asked the high court to stop the construction of
the project, and order its demolition for violations of the
constitutional provision on the conservation and Protection Act, and
RA No. 10066, also known as the National Cultural Heritage Act of
2009.
ISSUES:
II. How does the said tower become a nuisance per se?
RULING:
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.
II. No. It can easily be gleaned that the Torre de Manila is not a
nuisance per se.
On the other hand, the KOR now claims that the Torre de Manila is a
nuisance per accidens.
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.
DISSENTING OPINION:
TRO
Preliminary Injunction
City of manila:
ahcp diokno said outside the boundaries of rizal park (zoning) not
obstruction.
Letter erap
Granted zoning permit because willingness
Res 06a
Amending
Kor
Significant to society obstruction to the view, sightline of the rizal
monument.
National protected, entitled to full protection, abate activities
Contention nuisance, annoys or offends the senses.
Violation national historical cp guidelines for honoring ntional
heroes, assert dominance, conservation of monument (venice
charter, bad faith, zoning ordinance.
DMCI
1. DMCI RTC first. Hierarchy violated.
2. Appeal not jurisdiction of any court. Must be Manila zoning board,
HLURB.
3. Issue of cease and d, should come sec 25 RA 10066 national cul
2009. NOT senate courts.
4. KOR no legal rights or interest to prosecute this action
5. Purpose of KOR No interest. No pakialam dapat. Not shown that
directly affected.
6. NUISSANCE no it obtained all necessary permits. Eton is near.
7. DMCI good faith. Lawful exercise.
8. KOR failed to present proof DMCI did not follow proper procedure.
9. DMCI sought clarification from offices: CPDO, building, NHCP.
10. Court not trier of facts.
11. KOR not entitled to TRO or WRIT of prelim injunction.
12. DMCI complied. Did not violated any right of the KRO.
Manila
MANDAMUS compel to stop somthing
Cannot issue because no right is affected.
Discretionary acts
Construction did not violate any existing law. Line of sight of rizal
monument
Before this Court is a Rule 45 Petition assailing the Decision and the
Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA did not find any
grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Regional Trial Court,
Imus, Cavite, Branch 21 (RTC). The RTC had issued Orders refusing
to exclude the subject property in the Stay Order Pertaining to
assets under the rehabilitation of respondents Millians Shoe, Inc.
(MSI.