BRUNO S. CABRERA, PETITIONER, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND THE PROVINCE OF CATANDUANES, VICENTE M. ALBERTO, ENCARNACION TORRES, SANTIAGO VALDERAMA, JEREMIAS TRINIDAD, ALFREDO D…

Cabrera versus Court of Appeals

The Case

This is a petition brought by Bruno Cabrera against the Court of Appeals and the Province of Catanduanes, together with several private respondents, questioning the validity of a provincial board resolution that closed an old road leading to the capitol building and authorized the exchange of portions of that road for private properties needed for a new road. The case matters because it gathers in one decision the power of local authorities to close public thoroughfares, the requirement of indemnity under the Revised Administrative Code, and the rule on when a property owner may recover damages for the inconvenience of a street closure. It is a staple in examinations on public dominion, local government powers, and the doctrine of damnum absque injuria, meaning loss without legal injury.

Procedural History

Cabrera filed a complaint with the Court of First Instance of Catanduanes for restoration of a public road and abatement of nuisance, annulment of resolutions and documents, and damages. The trial court, through Judge Graciano Gayapa, Jr., held that the land was not a declared public road but a mere passageway or short cut, yet sustained the authority of the provincial board to enact the resolution. Cabrera appealed to the Court of Appeals, which found that the road was indeed a public road and not a trail, but likewise upheld the resolution, adding that the closure was valid only if persons prejudiced were indemnified. The appellate court also found that Cabrera was prejudiced by the closure and awarded him nominal or temperate damages of 5,000 pesos and attorney's fees of 2,000 pesos. Cabrera then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review, insisting that the resolution was not a closure order but an authority to barter public property.

Facts

On September 19, 1969, the Provincial Board of Catanduanes adopted Resolution Number 158, resolving to close the old road leading to the new capitol building effective October 31, 1969, and to give the owners of properties traversed by the new road equal areas taken from the old road adjacent to their remaining properties. The provincial governor was authorized to sign the pertinent deeds of exchange. Pursuant to the resolution, deeds of exchange were executed conveying portions of the closed road to several owners in exchange for their own properties, on which a new concrete road to the capitol was subsequently laid.

In 1977 and 1978, portions of the northern end of the old road fronting Cabrera's house were planted to vegetables by one owner and converted into a piggery by another who had bought a share. Learning of the resolution, Cabrera filed his complaint on December 29, 1978, alleging that the land fronting his house was a public road owned by the province in its governmental capacity and therefore beyond the commerce of man, and that the resolution, the deeds of exchange, and the closure were invalid.

Cabrera claimed that the closure injured him and his family because they could no longer use the old road to reach the national road and had to pass through a small passageway instead. The trial court found his claim of injury without basis, noting that he had easy access to the national road. The Court of Appeals disagreed and found that he was prejudiced and should be compensated.

Issues

• Whether or not Resolution Number 158 is an order of closure of the old road and not merely an authority to barter public property.
• Whether or not the provincial board has the authority to close the road and convey the withdrawn property for other purposes.
• Whether or not Cabrera is entitled to damages for the inconvenience caused by the closure.

Applicable Provisions

Section 11 of Republic Act Number 5185 provides:

II. The following actions by municipal officials or municipal councils, as provided for in the pertinent sections of the Revised Administrative Code shall take effect without the need of approval or direction from any official of the national government: Provided, That such actions shall be subject to approval or direction by the Provincial Board: (a) Authority to close thoroughfare under Section 2246.

This provision supplies the source of the provincial board's authority to approve or direct the closure of a thoroughfare.

Section 2246 of the Revised Administrative Code provides:

Section 2246. Authority to close thoroughfare. With the prior authorization of the Department Head, a municipal council may close any municipal road, street, alley, park, or square; but no such way or place aforesaid or any part thereof, shall be closed without indemnifying any person prejudiced thereby. Property thus withdrawn from public servitude may be used or conveyed for any purpose for which other real property belonging to the municipality might be lawfully used or conveyed.

This provision is the measure of the closure power, including the indemnity clause and the authority to convey the withdrawn property.

Article 422 of the Civil Code provides:

Property of public dominion, when no longer intended for public use or for public service, shall form part of the patrimonial property of the State.

This provision explains why property withdrawn from public servitude may thereafter be used or conveyed like ordinary patrimonial property.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Resolution Number 158 is plainly an order of closure. The resolution states in black and white that it is resolved to close the old road, and the Court dismissed as puerile the argument that no closure order existed.

On the second issue, the Court held that the provincial board had the authority to close the road and convey it for other purposes, derived from Republic Act Number 5185 in relation to Section 2246 of the Revised Administrative Code. Although the earlier cases of Cebu Oxygen and Acetylene Company against Bercilles and Favis against the City of Baguio dealt with city councils, the Court saw no reason not to apply the same doctrine to the provincial board, which has the duty of maintaining provincial roads for the comfort and convenience of the inhabitants. The Court also noted that the authority is inferable from the national legislature's grant of funds to the province for the construction of provincial roads. The Court quoted with approval the rule that the power to vacate a street is discretionary and will not ordinarily be controlled by the courts absent a plain case of abuse, fraud, or collusion, and that faithfulness to the public trust is presumed.

On the third issue, the Court held that Cabrera is not entitled to damages. Quoting Favis, the Court applied the rule that one whose property does not abut on the closed section has no right to compensation if he still has reasonable access to the general system of streets, and that to warrant recovery he must show special damages differing in kind, and not merely in degree, from those sustained by the public generally. The Court also quoted Richmond against the City of Hinton, which teaches that the Constitution does not guarantee the most convenient route to a property owner's door, and that such inconvenience is damnum absque injuria. The Court concluded that the injury Cabrera suffered is the price he and others like him must pay for the welfare of the entire community, and that this is not a case of expropriation requiring just compensation. Accordingly, the awards of 5,000 pesos and 2,000 pesos were deleted.

Doctrine

A provincial board may close a provincial road and convey the withdrawn property for other lawful purposes under Republic Act Number 5185 in relation to Section 2246 of the Revised Administrative Code, and the same doctrine governing city councils applies to provincial boards. Property withdrawn from public servitude becomes patrimonial property under Article 422 of the Civil Code and may be used or conveyed like other real property of the local government. The power to vacate a street is discretionary and will not be interfered with absent a plain case of abuse, fraud, or collusion. A property owner who does not abut on the closed section and who retains reasonable access to the general system of streets is not entitled to compensation; the inconvenience is damnum absque injuria unless he shows special damages differing in kind, not merely in degree, from those of the public generally.

Disposition

The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals as modified, deleting the awards of damages and attorney's fees, with costs against Cabrera.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the Constitution does not guarantee the most convenient route to a property owner's door, so that inconvenience from a street closure is damnum absque injuria absent special damages differing in kind. Examiners use this case on the closure powers of local legislative bodies, the patrimonial character of withdrawn public property, and the limits of compensable injury in street vacations.