Grammar Problem

Yes, why wouldn't it be?

might not be their native tongue...

It could be "right" grammatically but wrong in meaning, depending on the intended meaning.

Read literally, it can be taken to mean that the cake arrived of its own volition.

'Literal meaning' does not apply in this case. There are sometimes competing contexts in which single sentences may be ambiguous, but in this case no ambiguity is apparent. 'Cakes', 'presents', 'moments' can all 'arrive' in the sense of 'defining a a particular event in the flow of experience.
In semantic theory the noun 'cake' is minus animate in general usage, but of course poets and comedians etc, may make their living by breaking such general rules. Woody Allen' s personification of kitchen appliances is an example

Yes. It will be understood by anyone; it's a complete sentence. No fragment.

You're making assumptions about what applies or not in this case. It's possible that the OP was quoting a poet or comedian, as per your caveat. It's also possible that for the OP English isn't their first language, and they read the sentence literally.

No..you miss the point. The sentence is in totally acceptable in standard usage.

Sure. It can be taken, however, that the OP was unclear about standard usage and did read it literally.

I'm going to end this futile exchange by saying that the OP has been answered in full above and that speculation about what a non-native might understand by your use of literally is completely arbitrary. Face saving laboring of the point tends to be endemic on ESL threads and I am indebted to you for reminding me why I usually avoid them.

What's arbitrary is your offhanded assumption that "literal meaning" does not apply in this case given your complete and utter ignorance of what prompted the OP to question the sentence.

Please, do stay out of these threads, thank you.

The definition of 'non-native speaker' is one who has not assimilated the grammar of a native. That grammar includes a lexicon in which the verb 'to arrive' is NOT confined to animate objects, but merely implies 'an act of transportation'. Your lay term 'literally' is in essence a confusion with the term 'literary' in which idiosyncratic lexicons are employed as described above.

Try reading up on 'syntax', 'lexicon' and 'stylistics'. You will find them in any first year linguistics text book, the introduction to which usually points out that every speaker of a language tends to erroneously assume he has 'expertise' in what 'his language' is about. Since the mission statement of A2K is ostensibly about 'expert opinion', a tedious re-1teration of a 'my two cents worth' approach' is inappropriate.

NB I should perhaps have pointed out that speculation as to the most likely cause of the OP question would be that in his native language there are at least two verbs which map to the English verb arrive, whose differential usage distinguishes between animate and inanimate objects. A similar 'mapping issue' is illustrated by the verbs savoir and connaitre in French which both equate to know in English.

Yes. Je sais la date de la Révolution. Tu connais Madame Dupont? Aussi je sais nager mais je ne sais pas voler.

C'est vrai ! Mais on peut voler dans un mouton de Monty Python !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jC7NKkjCe0

Oui, bien sûr (les rosbifs me font mourir de rire) et Adam connut Eve sa femme ...

Ah oui, mais il n'y avait pas beaucoup a faire pour passer le temp, n'est-ce pas !

Yes, but would depend on the time of statement. Once people said , My mother is come this day from London.

Why do we sing "Joy to the world, the Lord is come," rather than "Joy to the world, the Lord has come"?

No, it can't.

When I say 'The door opened' that is neither active (the door did the opening) nor passive (there is no 'was opened'). Some would call it middle voice. But no one would say what you would say.