G.R. No. 245887 - City of Davao vs. AP Holdings, Inc.

Private respondents Crisanta, Elpidia, Efrina, Ireneo, and Artemio De Castro filed an action for partition on December 13, 1993, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Morong, Rizal, against petitioner Tomas Claudio Memorial College, Inc. (TCMC).
They alleged that their predecessor-in-interest, Juan De Castro, died intestate in 1993 and that they are his only surviving and legitimate heirs of Lot No. 3010 in Barrio San Juan, Morong, Rizal (2,269 sq. m.).

Private respondents claimed that in 1979 their brother Mariano, without their knowledge or consent, represented himself as sole heir and sold the entire lot to petitioner.
They contended that the sale could validly transfer only Mariano’s undivided one-fifth share, leaving the remaining four-fifths unaffected.

Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss alleging lack of jurisdiction and prescription/laches. The RTC dismissed the complaint on August 18, 1994, then, on October 4, 1994, granted private respondents’ motion for reconsideration and reinstated the case; petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on January 5, 1995.
Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 36349; the CA, by Decision dated August 14, 1995, and Resolution dated March 15, 1996, denied the petition and motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, grave abuse of discretion, and res judicata.

Whether the RTC and the CA had jurisdiction to entertain the partition action despite a prior final decision involving the same parties and subject matter.
Whether petitioner’s invocation of certiorari before the CA precludes a subsequent challenge to the CA’s jurisdiction.

Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the RTC’s orders that took cognizance of the partition case.
Whether any error in the lower courts’ exercise of jurisdiction amounts to grave abuse correctible by certiorari.

Whether an action for partition is barred by prescription or laches.
Whether the proper remedy against a sale of co-owned property without consent is annulment of sale or partition.