G.R. No. 124262 . October 12, 1999.
TOMAS CLAUDIO MEMORIAL COLLEGE, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ALEJANDRO S. MARQUEZ, CRISANTA DE CASTRO, ELPIDIA DE CASTRO, EFRINA DE CASTRO, IRENEO DE CASTRO and ARTEMIO DE CASTRO ADRIANO, respondents.

FACTS

On December 13, 1993, private respondents (heirs of Juan De Castro) filed an action for Partition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Morong, Rizal. They alleged that their father owned a parcel of land (Lot No. 3010) and that in 1979, their brother Mariano, representing himself as the sole heir, sold the lot to petitioner Tomas Claudio Memorial College, Inc. without their knowledge and consent. They contended the sale affected only Mariano’s undivided share. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and prescription/laches. The RTC initially dismissed the complaint but later reconsidered and set aside the dismissal. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioner then filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing the RTC had no jurisdiction as the causes of action had been finally decided by the Supreme Court and that the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion. The CA dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Regional Trial Court and/or the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction over the case.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals.
1. On Jurisdiction: The RTC acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action for partition as jurisdiction is conferred by law and determined by the allegations of the complaint. The jurisdiction of a court cannot be made to depend on defenses set up in a motion to dismiss. Furthermore, petitioner submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the CA by seeking affirmative relief via a petition for certiorari and cannot later challenge that court’s jurisdiction in the same case.
2. On Grave Abuse of Discretion: For certiorari to be granted, there must be a showing of grave abuse of discretion equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction, not mere errors of judgment. The Court found no showing of grave abuse of discretion committed by the public respondent. Any alleged errors would amount to errors of judgment, correctible by appeal, not certiorari.
3. On Prescription/Laches and the Action for Partition: The defense of prescription against an action for partition is untenable. Under Article 494 of the Civil Code, no co-owner is obliged to remain in co-ownership and may demand partition at any time. The action for partition is imprescriptible as long as the co-ownership is recognized. Citing Article 493 of the Civil Code, the sale by one co-owner (Mariano) of the entire property affects only his undivided share; the transferee (petitioner) becomes a co-owner. The proper action is for partition, not nullification of the sale.