Cabrera vs. Court of Appeals

A provincial board, as the approving authority under R.A. No. 5185 in relation to Section 2246 of the Revised Administrative Code, may validly order the closure of a provincial road and convey the property withdrawn from public servitude for any lawful purpose, including exchange for private properties; a person who still has reasonable access to the general system of streets is not entitled to damages for the closure, the injury being damnum absque injuria.

The Province of Catanduanes, through its Provincial Board, sought to improve public access to the new Capitol Building by constructing a new, wider, and concrete road connecting the Capitol directly from the pier area. To compensate the owners of the properties traversed by the proposed new road without expending public funds, the province devised a land exchange scheme: it would close the old road and convey portions thereof to the affected property owners in exchange for equal areas of their own lands. The petitioner, Bruno S. Cabrera, was a resident whose house fronted the northern end of the old road that was closed and subsequently occupied by some of the exchange beneficiaries.

On September 19, 1969, the Provincial Board of Catanduanes adopted Resolution No. 158, ordering the closure of the old road leading to the new Capitol Building effective October 31, 1969, and authorizing the Provincial Governor to sign deeds of exchange on behalf of the province, conveying portions of the closed road to property owners in exchange for equal areas of their own lands as surveyed by the Highway District Engineer's office. Pursuant to this resolution, deeds of exchange were executed under which the Province of Catanduanes conveyed portions of the closed road to Remedios R. Bagadiong, Fredeswindo F. Alcala, Elena S. Latorre, Baldomero Tolentino, Eulogia T. Alejandro, Angeles S. Vargas, and Juan S. Reyes, in exchange for their respective properties, on which a new concrete road leading to the Capitol Building was subsequently laid.

In 1977, Eulogia Alejandro planted vegetables on part of the northern end of the old road fronting the petitioner's house. Anselmo Peña, who had purchased Angeles Vargas's share in the same area, converted his portion into a piggery farm. These uses of the closed road portions prompted the petitioner to take action.

Upon learning of Resolution No. 158, the petitioner filed a complaint on December 29, 1978 with the Court of First Instance of Catanduanes for "Restoration of Public Road and/or Abatement of Nuisance, Annulment of Resolutions and Documents with Damages." He alleged 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 Resolution No. 158, the deeds of exchange, and the closure of the northern portion of the road were all invalid.

The trial court, in a decision dated November 21, 1980, found that the land in question was not a declared public road but a mere "passageway" or "short-cut," yet sustained the authority of the provincial board to enact Resolution No. 158. On appeal, the Court of Appeals found that the road was a public road and not a trail, but likewise upheld Resolution No. 158, ruling that the closure was valid because it was ordered by the approving authority itself — the provincial board — pursuant to R.A. No. 5185 in relation to Section 2246 of the Revised Administrative Code. The appellate court found that the petitioner was prejudiced by the closure and awarded him P5,000.00 as nominal and/or temperate damages and P2,000.00 as attorney's fees. The trial court, for its part, had found the petitioner's allegation of injury to be without basis, noting that vehicles used during the ocular inspection easily passed through the alternative route, reaching beyond the petitioner's house.

• Nature of Resolution No. 158: Petitioner argued that Section 2246 of the Revised Administrative Code was not applicable because Resolution No. 158 was not an order for closure of the road but merely an authority to barter or exchange it with private properties.
• Character of the Road: Petitioner maintained that the public road was owned by the province in its governmental capacity and, without a prior order of closure, could not be the subject of a barter.
• Authority Over Public Roads: Petitioner insisted that control over public roads rests with Congress and not with the provincial board.
• Entitlement to Damages: Petitioner alleged that the closure of the road had especially injured him and his family, as they could no longer use it in going to the national road leading to the old capitol building but had to pass through a small passageway, and that he was entitled to damages for such inconvenience.

• Validity of Resolution No. 158: Whether Resolution No. 158 of the Provincial Board of Catanduanes validly closed the old road and authorized the exchange of portions thereof for private properties.
• Authority of the Provincial Board: Whether the provincial board had the authority to close a provincial road and convey the withdrawn property for other purposes, including exchange for private lands.
• Entitlement to Damages: Whether the petitioner is entitled to damages for the inconvenience caused by the closure of the road.

• Validity of Resolution No. 158: Yes. Resolution No. 158 expressly ordered the closure of the old road, and the provincial board had authority to close it and convey the withdrawn property under R.A. No. 5185 in relation to Section 2246 of the Revised Administrative Code.
• Authority of the Provincial Board: Yes. The provincial board, as the approving authority under R.A. No. 5185, had the power to directly order the closure of a provincial road and to use or convey the property withdrawn from public servitude for any lawful purpose, the doctrine applied to city councils being equally applicable to provincial boards.
• Entitlement to Damages: No. The petitioner still had reasonable access to the general system of streets, and the injury suffered was damnum absque injuria — the price individuals must pay for the welfare of the entire community under the general welfare clause.

• Validity of Resolution No. 158: The Court found the petitioner's argument that Resolution No. 158 was not a closure order to be plainly contradicted by the text of the resolution itself, which stated it was "hereby resolved to close the old road." The closure was as plain as day. Once the road was closed and withdrawn from public servitude, Section 2246 of the Revised Administrative Code provided that the property "may be used or conveyed for any purpose for which other real property belonging to the municipality might be lawfully used or conveyed." The subsequent deeds of exchange were therefore valid, as the closed road portions had been withdrawn from public use and could be lawfully conveyed. The Court characterized the petitioner's contrary argument as puerile and bordering on trifling with the administration of justice.

• Authority of the Provincial Board: The authority of the provincial board derived from R.A. No. 5185, Section 11(II)(a), which provides that the authority to close thoroughfares under Section 2246 of the Revised Administrative Code is subject to approval or direction by the Provincial Board. Since the provincial board itself ordered the closure, it was valid as the action came from the approving authority. The Court applied the doctrine from Cebu Oxygen and Acetylene Co., Inc. vs. Bercilles, which sustained the power of a city council to close a city street and the subsequent sale of the withdrawn land under the Revised Charter of Cebu City and Article 422 of the Civil Code, and from Favis vs. City of Baguio, which upheld the power of the city council to close city streets and withdraw them from public use. The Court found no reason to distinguish between city councils and provincial boards, as the provincial board has the duty of maintaining provincial roads for the convenience of inhabitants, and the national legislature had granted funds to the province for road construction. Governor Vicente Alberto testified that the District Highway Engineer recommended the new road for the good of the community, and the exchange was undertaken to compensate property owners without expending public funds. The power to close a street is discretionary and will not ordinarily be interfered with by courts absent abuse, fraud, or collusion; faithfulness to the public trust is presumed, and incidental service of private interests does not invalidate the ordinance.

• Entitlement to Damages: The Court applied the rule from Favis vs. City of Baguio that one whose property does not abut on the closed section of a street has no right to compensation if he still has reasonable access to the general system of streets. To warrant recovery, the property owner must show special damages differing in kind, not merely in degree, from those sustained by the public generally. The trial court had found that the petitioner had easy access to the national road, as vehicles used during the ocular inspection easily passed through it. Although the Court of Appeals found prejudice and awarded damages, the Supreme Court held that the injury was damnum absque injuria — the price individuals must pay for the welfare of the entire community. The construction of the new road was undertaken under the general welfare clause, and the inconvenience suffered by the petitioner paled in significance compared to the greater convenience the new road provided to the public. The awards of P5,000.00 as nominal/temperate damages and P2,000.00 as attorney's fees were accordingly deleted.

• Power to Close Thoroughfares — The authority to close a municipal or provincial road, street, alley, park, or square, and to use or convey the property withdrawn from public servitude for any lawful purpose. Under R.A. No. 5185 in relation to Section 2246 of the Revised Administrative Code, the provincial board, as the approving authority, may directly order the closure of a provincial road. Property 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 power is discretionary and will not ordinarily be interfered with by courts absent a plain case of abuse, fraud, or collusion; faithfulness to the public trust is presumed, and the fact that some private interests may be served incidentally does not invalidate the closure ordinance. The doctrine applied to city councils extends equally to provincial boards.

• Right to Compensation for Street Closure — The general rule is that one whose property does not abut on the closed section of a street has no right to compensation for the closing or vacation of the street, if he still has reasonable access to the general system of streets. The circumstances in some cases may give a right to damages to a property owner even though his property does not abut on the closed section, but to warrant recovery the property owner must show that he has sustained special damages differing in kind, and not merely in degree, from those sustained by the public generally. The Constitution does not guarantee a property owner the public maintenance of the most convenient route to his door; he must content himself with such route as the regularly constituted public authority may deem most compatible with the public welfare.

• Damnum Absque Injuria — Injury suffered without violation of a legal right, for which no action for damages lies. The Court held that the petitioner's inconvenience from the road closure, he still having reasonable access to the general system of streets, was damnum absque injuria, as the closure was undertaken under the general welfare clause and the inconvenience was the price individuals must pay for community welfare. This is not a case of expropriation entitling the owner to just compensation.

• "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 is the text of Section 2246 of the Revised Administrative Code, the statutory basis for the validity of the deeds of exchange after the road was closed and withdrawn from public use.

• "The general rule is that one whose property does not abut on the closed section of a street has no right to compensation for the closing or vacation of the street, if he still has reasonable access to the general system of streets." — This passage from Favis vs. City of Baguio, quoted and applied in this decision, states the controlling rule on entitlement to damages for street closure and is frequently cited in subsequent jurisprudence.

• "we hold that the petitioner is not entitled to damages because the injury he has incurred, such as it is, is the price he and others like him must pay for the welfare of the entire community. This is not a case where his property has been expropriated and he is entitled to just compensation. The construction of the new road was undertaken under the general welfare clause." — This is the ratio decidendi on the damages issue, articulating the distinction between compensable injury and damnum absque injuria in the context of public infrastructure projects.

• "Such case is damnum absque injuria." — This concise formulation, drawn from Richmond vs. City of Hinton as quoted in Favis, encapsulates the doctrinal conclusion that inconvenience from a lawful street closure, absent special damages, does not give rise to a claim for compensation.

• Cebu Oxygen and Acetylene Co., Inc. vs. Bercilles, 66 SCRA 481 — Followed. The Court applied the doctrine that a city council may close a city street and that the property withdrawn from public servitude may be sold or conveyed, pursuant to the city charter and Article 422 of the Civil Code. The Court extended this doctrine to provincial boards, finding no reason to distinguish between city councils and provincial boards regarding the power to close thoroughfares.

• Favis vs. City of Baguio, 27 SCRA 1060 — Followed. The Court relied on Favis for two propositions: first, that the power to vacate a street or alley is discretionary and will not ordinarily be interfered with by courts absent abuse, fraud, or collusion; and second, for the governing rule on compensation — 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, absent special damages differing in kind from those sustained by the public generally.

• Richmond vs. City of Hinton, 185 S.E. 411 — Cited with approval through Favis. The Court quoted its observations that the Constitution does not guarantee a property owner the public maintenance of the most convenient route to his door, and that inconvenience from a lawful street closure, without more, is damnum absque injuria.

• Section 11(II)(a), Republic Act No. 5185 — Provides that the authority to close thoroughfares under Section 2246 of the Revised Administrative Code, when exercised by municipal officials or councils, shall be subject to approval or direction by the Provincial Board. The Court held that since the provincial board itself ordered the closure, the action was valid as it came from the approving authority.

• Section 2246, Revised Administrative Code — Authorizes the closing of municipal roads, streets, alleys, parks, or squares with prior authorization, and provides that property 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. The Court applied this provision to uphold both the closure of the old road and the subsequent exchange of the closed road portions for private properties.

• Article 422, Civil Code — Provides that 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. The Court cited this provision, through Cebu Oxygen, in connection with the conversion of the closed road from property of public dominion to patrimonial property, thereby enabling its lawful conveyance.

Narvasa, Gancayco, Griño-Aquino, and Medialdea, JJ., concurred.