CIVIL PROCEDURE 1
Sy 2024-2025
FINAL EXAMINATION
I. Read all questions carefully. Answers must be with legal basis. Mere yes
or no answer will not be given merit. Intellectual honesty is a must.
II. For submissions:
1. Distinguish failure to state a cause of action and lack of cause of action.
Answer:
Jurisprudence provides that Failure to state a cause of action refers to a pleading submitted by a
party whose allegations are insufficient and is thus, a ground for a motion to dismiss under the
Rules. Whereas, Lack of cause of action pertains to the insufficiency of the factual basis stated by
the party for the action filed or sought for, hence, a demurrer to evidence is a remedy.
2. Kagura, Inc. sued Chou, a resident of Bukidnon. To serve summons, the sheriff waited in
the lobby of Makati Hotel (MH), where Chou stays whenever he is in Manila. The sheriff
failed to serve the summons because Chou left the hotel for an emergency. Hours later, the
sheriff asked the front desk about Chou’s whereabouts and his room number. The hotel
refused to disclose on grounds of confidentiality. The sheriff tried again the next day, but
Chou was in a conference until midnight. So, the following day, the sheriff left the
summons and a copy of the complaint with MH's chief security officer (CSO), even as the
CSO refused because Chou had already checked out by then. The sheriff thereafter filed his
return, stating the dates, times and places of his attempts, the name of the CSO, and the fact
that the complaint was served with the summons. When Chou did not file an Answer,
Kagura, Inc. moved to declare him in default. Was there a valid substituted service of
summons? Explain briefly.
Answer:
No. There was no valid substituted service of summons. Under the Rules, a substituted service
is done if the defendant cannot be served personally after at least 3 attempts on 2 different dates
which among others may be effected by leaving copies of the summons if refused entry, even if
authority or purpose of the Sheriff was made known with the chief security officer (CSO) of the
community or the building where the defendant may be found. Here, the sheriff attempted to
serve the summons to Chou who was in the Makati hotel (MH) where he may be found
whenever he is in Manila on 3 attempts and on 2 different succeeding dates. First, by waiting
for him in the lobby where he was refused by the front desk for confidentiality purposes, then
by coming back the next day, and then the following day where he left the summons and a copy
of the complaint with MH's CSO. However, on the Sheriff’s 3rd attempt, the CSO refused to
receive such copies of subpoena because according to him, Chou had already checked out by
then. Therefore, since Chou can no longer be found there, the substituted service of summons is
improper. Although the 3 attempts on 2 different dates rule were complied with, substituted
service cannot happen because the person whom is actually being served with summons can no
longer be found there.
3. Natalia, a resident of Naga City, filed a complaint for the partition of a large tract of land
located in Makati City. She impleaded her two brothers Alpha and Sun as defendants but
did not implead Hilda and Aurora, her two sisters who were permanent residents of
Australia. Arguing that there could be no final determination of the case without
impleading all indispensable parties, Alpha and Sun moved to dismiss the complaint. Does
the trial court have a reason to deny the motion? Explain your answer.
Answer:
Yes. Under the Rules, failure to implead an indispensable party does not automatically result to
an outright dismissal of the case where there are other remedies under the rules which could be
utilized such as the addition of the indispensable parties by the court on its own or by motion of
