G.R. No. 167866 - Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. vs. Pagdanga

The Spouses Ramon and Marta Solis owned a five-hectare untitled fishpond in Romblon, covered by Tax Declaration No. 82 and later No. A08-005-00279 in Ramon’s name.
They donated other properties to their children but retained the subject fishpond until their death.

After their deaths, the Provincial Assessor “corrected” a typographical error, changing the owner’s name from Ramon M. Solis, Sr. to Ramon M. Solis, Jr.
Upon Ramon Jr.’s death, his heirs (including Marivic Solis-Laynes) executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate and secured Tax Declaration No. 00357 in their names.
Marivic later registered the fishpond under Free Patent No. IV-045907-117191 and Original Certificate of Title No. P-27877.

Salvador M. Solis sued for Quieting of Title, Reconveyance, and Nullity of Marivic’s Free Patent, OCT, and tax declaration, alleging fraud.
Personal service on Marivic failed; the RTC granted leave for service by publication, directing publication in a nationwide newspaper and mailing of summons to Marivic’s last known U.S. address.
Salvador published the summons but mistakenly mailed copies to Marivic’s Philippine address. Marivic did not respond, and the RTC declared her in default, admitted ex parte evidence, and rendered a default judgment on February 16, 2015 nullifying her titles and awarding damages.
Marivic filed a Motion for New Trial (alleging fraud and lack of due process) and a motion for reconsideration, both of which the RTC denied.

The CA reversed the RTC, finding extraterritorial service defective for failure to mail a copy of the summons to Marivic’s U.S. address, and dismissed the complaint on July 20, 2017.
Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied on October 23, 2017.

Petitioners filed a Rule 45 petition, arguing (a) Marivic’s voluntary appearance cured any defect in service; (b) the CA erred by relying on outdated jurisprudence and overlooking their appellee’s brief; and (c) the CA abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint.
Marivic maintained that service was invalid and her limited participation did not waive jurisdictional defects or her right to due process.

Whether the extraterritorial service of summons by publication was valid despite failure to mail summons and complaint to Marivic’s U.S. address.
Whether Marivic’s voluntary appearance via motions for new trial and reconsideration cured any jurisdictional defect in the service of summons.
Whether the CA erred in dismissing the complaint instead of remanding for trial.
Whether the CA’s failure to admit petitioners’ belated appellee’s brief was reversible error.