Case Summary (G.R. No. L-28329)
Petitioner’s Claim and Relief Sought
The petitioner alleged that the land fronting his house constituted a public road owned by the Province of Catanduanes in its governmental capacity and thus beyond private commerce. He challenged Provincial Board Resolution No. 158 and the consequent deeds of exchange as invalid, contending that the closure and barter of a public road without proper authority or prior order was unlawful. He sought restoration of the public road and/or abatement of nuisance, annulment of the resolutions and deeds of exchange, and damages for the alleged prejudice and loss of access.
Respondents’ Position and Actions Taken
Pursuant to Provincial Board Resolution No. 158 (adopted September 19, 1969, effective October 31, 1969), the Province closed the old road and executed deeds of exchange conveying portions of the closed road to several private persons in exchange for their properties, on which a new concrete road was laid. Government testimony (Governor Vicente Alberto) explained that the provincial government acted pursuant to recommendations from the District Highway Engineer to construct a better, more direct, and wider road to improve public convenience and town planning; the exchange was used to avoid direct monetary compensation to owners of properties where the new road would pass.
Key Dates and Procedural History
- Resolution No. 158 adopted: September 19, 1969 (effective October 31, 1969).
- Planting and conversion of parts of old road into private uses occurred in 1977–1978.
- Petitioner filed suit in the Court of First Instance of Catanduanes: December 29, 1978.
- Trial court decision: November 21, 1980 (found the land a “passageway” but upheld provincial board authority).
- Court of Appeals decision: February 17, 1987 (found the land a public road, upheld Resolution 158, and awarded damages to petitioner).
- Supreme Court decision: March 18, 1991 (affirmed Court of Appeals as modified, deleting damages and attorney’s fees; costs against petitioner).
Applicable Law and Precedents Relied Upon
- 1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable as the decision date is 1991).
- Republic Act No. 5185, Section 11(II)(a) — recognizing municipal acts listed in the Revised Administrative Code but subject to provincial board approval or direction, including authority to close thoroughfares under Sec. 2246.
- Revised Administrative Code, Section 2246 — authorizes municipal councils, with prior authorization of the Department Head, to close municipal roads, streets, alleys, parks or squares, but requires indemnifying any person prejudiced thereby; property withdrawn from public servitude may be used or conveyed like other municipal property.
- Precedents: Cebu Oxygen and Acetylene Co., Inc. v. Bercilles (closure and sale of city street upheld, citing Civil Code art. 422 on property of public dominion), Favis v. City of Baguio (city council’s power to close streets and doctrine on compensation), and Richmond v. City of Hinton (quoted in Favis, discussing reasonable access and damnum absque injuria).
Factual Findings by the Trial Court and Court of Appeals
The trial court characterized the affected strip as not a formally declared public road but a mere “passageway” or “short-cut,” yet sustained the provincial board’s authority to enact Resolution No. 158. The Court of Appeals, after ocular inspection and review, concluded the strip was a public road (not merely a trail) but nonetheless held that the provincial board validly closed it pursuant to the provincial authority recognized under R.A. No. 5185 and Section 2246. The lower courts also found that portions of the old road had been converted to private uses (vegetable plots, piggery).
Legal Issue: Authority to Close and Barter a Former Public Road
The central legal question was whether the provincial board could close the old road and use or convey it by exchange without violating the law governing public roads and without proper indemnification. The courts analyzed the authority conferred by R.A. No. 5185 (which incorporates certain powers under the Revised Administrative Code, including the authority to close thoroughfares subject to provincial board approval), and Section 2246 (which requires indemnity to those prejudiced and permits the municipality to use or convey property withdrawn from public servitude). The Supreme Court applied doctrine from city-council closure cases (Cebu Oxygen; Favis) by analogy to the provincial board, concluding there is no sound reason to deny the provincial board the analogous authority to determine the necessity of a road, close it, and thereafter use or convey it when no longer needed for public use.
Application of Precedent and Justification for the Closure
The decision relied on analogous precedents where local legislative bodies have discretion to close streets; such discretion is presumed to be exercised in the public interest and is not lightly disturbed except for abuse, fraud, or collusion. The testimony of the Governor and the recommendation of the District Highway Engineer provided a factual justification showing the new road offered greater public convenience, directness, and improved town planning. The courts found the closure and exchange to fall within the province’s authority to manage provincial roads and to apply the principle that property of public dominion, when no longer intended for public use, may become patrimonial property and be used or conveyed.
Legal Issue: Right to Compensation and Damages
Another issue was whether the petitioner suffered compensable injury from the closure. The Court of Appeals concluded he was prejudiced and awarded P5,000 as damages and P2,000 attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court applied the principle from Favis and Richmond v. City of Hinton: a property owner whose property does not abut the closed section ordinarily has no right to compensation if he retains reasonable access to the street system; only special damages differing in kind from those suffered by the public generally give rise to recovery. The constitutional or statutory guarantee does not ensure maintenance of the most convenient route to a private door.
Application to the Petitioner’s Situation
The Supreme Court found that the petitioner retained reasonable access to the national road via a small passageway and that the inconvenience he suffered was not of a spe
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-28329)
Case Citation and Court
- Reported at 272-A Phil. 285.
- First Division; G.R. No. 78673.
- Decision date: March 18, 1991.
- Opinion by Justice Cruz; Narvasa (Chairman), Gancayco, Grino-Aquino, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.
Core Facts: Resolution No. 158 and Subsequent Acts
- On September 19, 1969, the Provincial Board of Catanduanes adopted Resolution No. 158.
- Text of Resolution No. 158 (as provided):
- Resolved to close the old road leading to the new Capitol Building of the province to traffic effective October 31, 1969.
- Resolved to give to the owners of the properties traversed by the new road equal area as per survey by the Highway District Engineer's office from the old road adjacent to the respective remaining portion of their properties.
- Resolved further that the Honorable Provincial Governor be authorized to sign for and on behalf of the Province of Catanduanes the pertinent Deed of Exchange and/or other documents pertaining thereto.
- Pursuant to Resolution No. 158, Deeds of Exchange were executed by which the Province conveyed portions of the closed road to the following persons in exchange for their respective properties: Remedios R. Bagadiong, Fredeswindo F. Alcala, Elena S. Latorre, Baldomero Tolentino, Eulogia T. Alejandro, Angeles S. Vargas, and Juan S. Reyes.
- A new concrete road leading to the Capitol Building was subsequently laid on the exchanged properties.
- Specific uses of part of the old road after closure:
- In 1977, part of the northern end of the old road fronting the petitioner's house was planted to vegetables by Eulogia Alejandro (noted in 1978 as planted in 1977).
- Anselmo Pena, who had purchased Angeles Vargas’s share, converted a portion of the same part of the road into a piggery farm.
Petitioner's Complaint and Legal Contentions
- On December 29, 1978, petitioner Bruno S. Cabrera filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Catanduanes titled: "Restoration of Public Road and/or Abatement of Nuisance, Annulment of Resolutions and Documents with Damages."
- Petitioner's main allegations:
- The land fronting his house constituted a public road owned by the Province of Catanduanes in its governmental capacity and was thus beyond the commerce of man.
- Resolution No. 158 and the ensuing deeds of exchange were invalid and the closure of the northern portion of the said road was illegal.
- Section 2246 of the Revised Administrative Code did not apply because Resolution No. 158 was, he claimed, an authority to barter or exchange the road, not an order of closure.
- Control over public roads, he asserted, rested with Congress and not with the provincial board.
- He alleged special injury and prejudice: loss of access to the national road leading to the old capitol building, having to use a small passageway instead, and entitlement to damages for such inconvenience.
Trial Court Findings (Court of First Instance)
- Decision dated November 21, 1980, by Judge Graciano P. Gayapa, Jr.
- Key findings:
- The land in question was not a declared public road but a mere "passageway" or "short-cut."
- Nevertheless, the trial court sustained the authority of the provincial board to enact Resolution No. 158 under the existing law.
- The trial court found the petitioner's allegation of injury and prejudice to be without basis, noting that the petitioner had "easy access anyway to the national road" and that vehicles used by the Court and parties during ocular inspection could easily pass and reach beyond plaintiff's house.
Court of Appeals Ruling and Reasoning
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the matter on appeal from the trial court (ponente Pronove, Jr., with Camilon and Cacdac, Jr., JJ.).
- Findings and holdings:
- The Court of Appeals found that the road was a public road and not merely a trail.
- It nevertheless upheld Resolution No. 158 and the closure.
- Legal basis cited: Republic Act No. 5185, Section 11 (II) (a), and Section 2246 of the Revised Administrative Code, supporting municipal/provincial authority to close thoroughfares subject to specified conditions and approval.
- The Court of Appeals held that while the provincial government could close the road, it could do so only if persons prejudiced thereby were indemnified, citing the explicit mandate of Section 2246.
- The Court of Appeals concluded that the petitioner "was prejudiced by the closure of the road which formerly fronted his house" and that he and his family "were undoubtedly inconvenienced by the loss of access to their place of residence for which we believe they should be compensated."
- The dispositive portion of the challenged decision awarded the petitioner P5,000.00 as nominal and/or temperate damages and P2,000.00 as attorney's fees.
Supreme Court Issues Framed and Petitioner's Arguments Before the High Court
- Principal legal issues presented:
- Whether Resolution No. 158 validly closed the old road and thus authorized its exchange or conveyance.
- Whether Section 2246 of the Revised Administrative Code applied to the closure and exchange.
- Whether control over public roads lay exclusively with Congress and not the provincial board.
- Whether petitioner suffered compensable damages by reason of the closure and exchange.
- Petitioner's argument reiterated before the Supreme Court:
- Section 2246 was not applicable because Resolution No. 158 was not an order of closure but an authority to barter or exchange the road.
- The public road, held by the province in its governmental capacity, could not be the subject of barter absent a prior order of closure.
- The alleged loss of access and inconvenience entitled him to damages.