Case Digest (G.R. No. 235099)
Facts:
Salvador M. Solis for Himself and on Behalf of the Estate of the Spouses Ramon M. Solis, Sr. and Marta M. Solis v. Marivic Solis-Laynes, G.R. No. 235099, March 29, 2023, Supreme Court Third Division, Gaerlan, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners (Salvador M. Solis for himself and as heir) sued respondent Marivic Solis-Laynes (and certain local officers) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 82, Odiongan, Romblon, seeking quieting of title/reconveyance and annulment of tax declaration, free patent and original certificate of title over a five-hectare fishpond. The fishpond had been covered by tax declarations in the name of the late Ramon M. Solis, Sr.; a later change allegedly altered the owner to Ramon M. Solis, Jr., and after Ramon Jr.'s death the property passed by extrajudicial settlement to his heirs, including Marivic, who later secured a Free Patent and an Original Certificate of Title.
Petitioners alleged the change and subsequent registration in Marivic's name resulted from fraud. Petitioners attempted extraterritorial service on Marivic (resident in the United States) by securing the RTC's leave to serve summons by publication; the RTC order specified Marivic's U.S. address but the published summons was accompanied only by mailing of the summons and complaint to a Philippine address (Marivic's relatives), not to the U.S. address. An affidavit of publication was filed. Marivic failed to answer within the prescribed period and the RTC declared her in default, permitted ex parte presentation of evidence, and, on February 16, 2015, rendered judgment nullifying the Free Patent and OCT in her name, ordering cancellation of tax declaration and awarding damages to petitioners.
Marivic moved for a new trial on grounds of fraud and violation of due process, alleging improper service and that petitioners knowingly used a Philippine address despite her U.S. residence; the RTC denied the motion and subsequent reconsideration. Marivic appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in a decision dated July 20, 2017 (and Resolution of October 23, 2017 denying reconsideration), reversed the RTC, holding that extraterritorial service under Section 15, Rule 14, requires (when effected by publication) that a copy of the summons and order be sent by registered mail to the defendant's last known address, which petitioners failed to do; the CA thus found service defective and dismissed the complaint.
Petitioners filed a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari in the Supreme Court, arguing (inter alia) that (1) the CA erred because Marivic voluntarily appeared and actively litigated before the RTC, thereby curing any defect in service; (2) the CA relied on o...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in refusing to admit petitioners' belated Appellees' Brief?
- Was extraterritorial service of summons on Marivic valid under Section 15, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure?
- If service was defective, was that defect cured by Marivic's voluntary appearance and her filing of a Motion for New Trial?
- Was the CA correct to dismiss the complaint outright, or should the case be remanded...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)