Tomas Claudio Memorial College, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

The Court held that an action for partition among co-owners is imprescriptible, and a sale of the entire property by one co-owner without the consent of the others affects only the selling co-owner's undivided share. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint, and any error in the exercise of that jurisdiction constitutes a mere error of judgment not correctible by certiorari.

Private respondents, the surviving legitimate heirs of Juan De Castro, sought the partition of a parcel of land (Lot No. 3010) in Morong, Rizal. In 1979, their brother Mariano sold the entire lot to petitioner Tomas Claudio Memorial College, Inc. without the knowledge and consent of the other heirs, representing himself as the sole heir to the property.

• The Property and the Sale: Private respondents alleged that their predecessor-in-interest, Juan De Castro, died intestate in 1993, leaving a parcel of land designated as Lot No. 3010. In 1979, their brother Mariano sold the entire lot to petitioner Tomas Claudio Memorial College, Inc. (TCMC) without the knowledge and consent of the other heirs, representing himself as the sole heir to the property.
• The Partition Action: Private respondents filed an action for partition before the RTC, contending that the sale affected only Mariano's undivided share and not their 4/5 share of the property.
• Lower Court Proceedings: Petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and prescription or laches. The RTC initially dismissed the complaint but, upon private respondents' motion for reconsideration, set aside the dismissal. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied.

• Petitioner argued that the RTC and the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction over the case because the causes of action had been finally decided by the Court of First Instance and sustained by the Supreme Court in a prior land registration case.
• Petitioner maintained that the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in affirming the RTC orders, because the RTC had previously ruled in Civil Case No. 170 that petitioner is not a real party in interest, a case involving the same relief, subject matter, and parties.
• Petitioner contended that the Court of Appeals capriciously and whimsically disregarded the existence of res judicata.

• Respondent countered that the RTC properly acquired jurisdiction over the action for partition based on the allegations in the complaint.
• Respondent maintained that the action for partition is imprescriptible under the Civil Code and that the sale by Mariano affected only his pro indiviso share.

• Procedural Issues: Whether the RTC and the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction over the partition case. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the RTC.
• Substantive Issues: Whether the action for partition is barred by prescription. Whether the sale of the entire property by one co-owner without the consent of the others is valid and binding upon the non-consenting co-owners.

• Procedural: The Court held that the RTC properly acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter of the partition case, as jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint. Any error in the RTC's exercise of jurisdiction amounts to a mere error of judgment correctible by appeal, not grave abuse of discretion reviewable by certiorari. Furthermore, petitioner is estopped from challenging the Court of Appeals' jurisdiction after having sought affirmative relief from it.
• Substantive: The Court held that the sale of the entire property by one co-owner without the consent of the others is not null and void, but affects only the selling co-owner's pro indiviso share, making the buyer a co-owner to the extent of that share. The proper action is partition, not nullification of the sale. Pursuant to Article 494 of the Civil Code, the action for partition is imprescriptible; thus, prescription is not a valid defense against a co-owner's demand for partition.

• Imprescriptibility of Partition — Under Article 494 of the Civil Code, no co-owner is obliged to remain in the co-ownership and may demand partition at any time. The Court applied this doctrine to rule that private respondents' action for partition cannot be barred by prescription or laches.
• Disposition by a Co-Owner — Under Article 493 of the Civil Code, a sale or disposition by a co-owner affects only the seller's pro indiviso share, and the transferee gets only what corresponds to the grantor's share. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that Mariano's sale of the entire property to petitioner affected only his undivided share, making petitioner a co-owner to the extent of that share.
• Determination of Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to the claims asserted, and cannot be made to depend on defenses in the answer or motion to dismiss. The Court applied this to hold that the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the partition case upon the filing of the complaint.
• Estoppel to Challenge Jurisdiction — A party who invokes a court's jurisdiction by seeking affirmative relief cannot thereafter challenge that court's jurisdiction in the same case. The Court applied this to bar petitioner from questioning the Court of Appeals' jurisdiction after having elevated the case to that court via a petition for certiorari.

• "Under Article 493 of the Civil Code, the sale or other disposition affects only the seller's share pro indiviso, and the transferee gets only what corresponds to his grantor's share in the partition of the property owned in common." — Articulates the effect of a sale by a co-owner without the consent of the others.
• "Pursuant to Article 494 of the Civil Code, 'no co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership. Such co-owner may demand at anytime the partition of the thing owned in common, insofar as his share is concerned.'" — Provides the statutory basis for the imprescriptibility of the action for partition.

• Bailon-Casilao vs. Court of Appeals, 160 SCRA 738 (1988) — Followed. Ruled that a sale by a co-owner of the entire property without consent affects only his share, and the proper action is partition, not nullification.
• Budlong vs. Bondoc, 79 SCRA 24 (1977) — Followed. Interpreted Article 494 of the Civil Code to mean that the action for partition is imprescriptible.
• Sarmiento vs. Salud, 46 SCRA 365 (1972) — Followed. Held that a party invoking a court's jurisdiction cannot thereafter challenge it.
• Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, 273 SCRA 239 (1997) — Followed. Held that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint.

• Article 493, Civil Code — Provides that a co-owner's disposition of the thing owned in common affects only his pro indiviso share. Applied to hold that Mariano's sale affected only his share, making the buyer a co-owner.
• Article 494, Civil Code — Declares that no co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership and may demand partition at any time. Applied to rule that the action for partition is imprescriptible and cannot be barred by prescription.
• Rule 65, Rules of Court — Governs special civil actions for certiorari. Applied in determining that the proper remedy for errors of judgment is appeal, not certiorari, which lies only for grave abuse of discretion.

Mendoza and Buena, JJ., concur. (Bellosillo, J., was on official leave).