Short answer. No. Civil Code Article 492 states that when part of a thing belongs exclusively to one co-owner and the remainder is owned in common, the majority-rule provision applies only to the part owned in common. Decisions by the co-owners cannot bind or govern the portion you own exclusively.
What the law says
Whenever a part of the thing belongs exclusively to one of the co-owners, and the remainder is owned in common, the preceding provision shall apply only to the part owned in common.
Civil Code, Article 492 — How Co-owners Decide on Administration. Read the full provision →
How majority rule works among co-owners
Article 492 sets the general rule for how co-owners manage property held in common: for the administration and better enjoyment of the thing owned in common, the resolutions of the majority of the co-owners shall be binding. That majority is not counted by headcount alone; the article requires that the resolution be approved by the co-owners who represent the controlling interest in the object of the co-ownership. Where there is no majority, or where the majority's resolution would seriously prejudice interested parties, the court may step in at an interested party's request, including by appointing an administrator.
The article's own limit on where that rule reaches
The article then addresses exactly the mixed-ownership situation you describe, where part of a property is owned exclusively and the rest is co-owned. It confines the majority-rule provision explicitly: it shall apply only to the part owned in common. Your exclusively-owned portion is not part of the co-ownership at all in the legal sense, so the mechanism the article sets up for co-owners to decide on administration and enjoyment of the shared property has no basis to extend into a portion nobody else has any ownership stake in.
What this means for your own portion
Because your exclusive portion sits outside the co-ownership, decisions the other co-owners reach by majority vote about the commonly owned areas do not carry authority over how you manage, use, or administer the part you own outright. Your rights over your exclusive portion are governed by ordinary rules of individual ownership rather than by this article's co-ownership machinery. The two portions are legally separate for this purpose even though they exist within the same overall building, and majority governance applies strictly to the shared part, leaving your exclusive ownership as untouched as if the co-ownership arrangement did not exist at all.
Why the court's oversight role tracks the same boundary
The court's power to step in when there is no majority, or when a majority resolution seriously prejudices interested parties, exists to police the same co-ownership relationship the majority-rule provision governs, which is why it is also confined to the commonly owned part. A dispute about how you individually manage your exclusive portion is not the kind of disagreement Article 492 was written to resolve, since there is no co-ownership over that portion for the court's oversight to attach to in the first place. Disputes touching only your exclusive share fall outside this article's framework entirely.