CASE DIGEST : SALVADOR M. SOLIS FOR HIMSELF AND ON BEHALF OF ESTATE OF SPS. RAMON M. SOLIS v. MARIVIC SOLIS-LAYNES GR No. 235099, Mar 29, 2023 GAERLAN

FACTS : The Spouses Solis owned an untitled five-hectare fishpond in Romblon covered by tax declarations in the name of Ramon M. Solis, Sr. After their deaths, one of their heirs, Salvador Solis, discovered that the tax declaration had been altered to reflect the name of his brother, Ramon M. Solis, Jr., allegedly due to a "typographical error." Upon Ramon Jr.'s death, the fishpond was included in his estate and later transferred to his heirs. Eventually, respondent Marivic Solis-Laynes secured a free patent and an Original Certificate of Title over the fishpond. Claiming that Marivic fraudulently obtained title to property belonging to the estate of their parents, petitioners filed an action for quieting of title, reconveyance, and declaration of nullity of the tax declaration, free patent, and title. Although Marivic was already residing in the United States, the RTC allowed service of summons by publication after summons sent to her Philippine address were returned unserved. Marivic failed to answer the complaint, was declared in default, and the RTC rendered judgment nullifying her title and ordering her to pay damages.

Marivic later filed a motion for new trial, arguing that she was denied due process because Salvador knew she had been residing in the United States for over 20 years but failed to properly serve summons at her foreign address as required by the RTC's own order. The RTC denied her motion, prompting her to appeal. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, holding that the action was quasi in rem and that, under Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, service by publication alone was insufficient. Since Salvador failed to send a copy of the summons by registered mail to Marivic's last known address in the United States despite the RTC's directive, there was no valid service of summons. Consequently, the CA set aside the RTC's decision and dismissed the complaint for lack of valid jurisdiction over Marivic.

ISSUE : WON the CA erred when it set aside of the decision of the RTC

HELD : The Supreme Court partly granted the petition. It held that the extraterritorial service of summons on Marivic was defective because although summons was published, petitioners failed to send copies of the summons and complaint to her last known address in the United States, as expressly required by Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court and the RTC’s own order. However, the defect was cured when Marivic voluntarily appeared before the RTC by filing a Motion for New Trial seeking not only to question jurisdiction but also to set aside the default judgment and present evidence on the merits, thereby submitting herself to the court’s jurisdiction.

Nevertheless, the Court ruled that Marivic’s voluntary appearance cured only the jurisdictional defect and did not cure the denial of her right to be heard. Since she was improperly declared in default and deprived of the opportunity to present evidence, the RTC should have granted her Motion for New Trial. Thus, while affirming the CA’s nullification of the RTC’s default judgment, the Court modified the CA’s ruling by reinstating the complaint instead of dismissing it and remanded the case to the RTC for a full-blown trial to allow Marivic to file her responsive pleading and fully participate in the proceedings, in keeping with the requirements of due process and substantial justice.