Cabrera v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On September 19, 1969, the Provincial Board of Catanduanes adopted Resolution No. 158, resolving to close the old road leading to the new Capitol Building effective October 31, 1969, and to give owners of properties traversed by the new road equal area from the old road adjacent to their remaining properties. Pursuant thereto, Deeds of Exchange were executed. In 1978, parts of the northern end of the old road were converted into a vegetable garden and a piggery farm by private individuals. Procedural History: On December 29, 1978, the petitioner filed a complaint for restoration of public road, annulment of resolutions and documents, and damages, alleging the land was a public road beyond the commerce of man and that the closure and exchange were invalid. The Court of First Instance ruled that the land was a passageway, not a declared public road, but sustained the provincial board's authority. The Court of Appeals found the road to be public but upheld Resolution No. 158, stating the closure was valid but required indemnification for prejudiced parties. The Petition: The petitioner argued that Resolution No. 158 was an authority to barter, not a closure order, and that a public road could not be bartered without a prior closure order. He also contended that control over public roads lies with Congress, not the provincial board, and that he suffered special damages due to the closure.
Issue(s)
Whether Resolution No. 158 of the Provincial Board of Catanduanes constitutes a valid closure of a public road, and whether the provincial board has the authority to close a public road and exchange portions thereof for private properties. Whether the petitioner is entitled to damages for the closure of the road.
Ruling
The petition is without merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, modifying it by deleting the awards for nominal/temperate damages and attorney's fees.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the closure and the authority of the provincial board: The Court found that Resolution No. 158 clearly stated the intent to "close the old road," refuting the petitioner's claim that it was merely an authority to barter. The authority of the provincial board to close the road and use or convey it for other purposes was derived from Republic Act No. 5185 in relation to Section 2246 of the Revised Administrative Code. This authority was further supported by jurisprudence concerning the closure of city streets, such as in Cebu Oxygen and Acetylene Co., Inc. v. Bercilles and Favis v. City of Baguio, which held that property withdrawn from public servitude becomes patrimonial property and can be used or conveyed for other purposes. The Court reasoned that the provincial board, tasked with maintaining provincial roads, also possessed the authority to close them, especially when such closure was for the greater convenience of the public and the community, as evidenced by the construction of a new, wider, and more direct road to the Capitol. On the entitlement to damages: The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to damages. Applying the principle laid down in Favis v. City of Baguio and quoting Richmond v. City of Hinton, the Court stated that a property owner whose property does not abut the closed section of a street has no right to compensation if reasonable access to the general system of streets is still available. The injury suffered by the petitioner, if any, was considered damnum absque injuria – a loss or damage without injury in the legal sense – as it was the price for the welfare of the entire community. The inconvenience to the petitioner was deemed insignificant compared to the greater convenience provided by the new road to the public, and the construction of the new road was undertaken under the general welfare clause. Therefore, the awards for nominal/temperate damages and attorney's fees were deleted.
Main Doctrine
A provincial board has the authority to close a public road under its jurisdiction, provided that persons prejudiced are indemnified, and property withdrawn from public servitude may be used or conveyed for other purposes, especially when done under the general welfare clause for the improvement of public convenience and the community.