G.R. No. 78673 - Cabrera vs. Court of Appeals

On September 19, 1969, the Provincial Board adopted Resolution No. 158 which resolved to close the old road leading to the new Capitol Building of Catanduanes, effective October 31, 1969.
The resolution further provided that the owners of properties traversed by the new road were to be given equal area from the old road adjacent to the remaining portion of their properties, based on a survey by the Highway District Engineer's office.
The Provincial Governor was authorized to sign the pertinent Deed of Exchange and other related documents on behalf of the Province.

In compliance with the resolution, the Province conveyed portions of the closed road to certain private individuals in exchange for their respective properties over which the new road was constructed.
A new concrete road leading to the Capitol Building was subsequently laid on the exchanged properties.

In 1977-78, parts of the northern end of the old road were converted by private individuals into agricultural and farming uses.
Petitioner Bruno S. Cabrera filed a complaint on December 29, 1978, before the Court of First Instance of Catanduanes for the restoration of the public road, abatement of nuisance, annulment of the resolutions and deeds of exchange, and for damages.
He claimed that the land fronting his house was a public road owned by the Province in its governmental capacity, and thus could not be alienated without proper closure and authority. He insisted that Resolution No. 158 and the subsequent deeds were null and void.

The trial court ruled that the land was a mere passageway and not a declared public road but upheld the authority of the provincial board to enact Resolution No. 158.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals ruled that the road was a public road and upheld the validity of the road closure by the provincial board pursuant to Republic Act No. 5185 and Section 2246 of the Revised Administrative Code.
It further held that while the petitioner was prejudiced by the closure of the road fronting his house, he was entitled only to compensation if special damages were proven.

Whether the Provincial Board had the authority to close the old road and exchange it for private properties under Resolution No. 158.
Whether the closure and exchange of the road were carried out in accordance with law and validly executed.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to damages for injury and inconvenience caused by the closure of the road.