Salita Vs Magtolis

CIVPRO [RULE 12 MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS]
1 - Salita v. Magtolis
Petitioner: Joselita Salita

Respondent: Hon. Delilah Magtolis as RTC Judge of QC and Erwin Espinosa
Facts:
1. Erwin Espinosa, 32, and Joselita Salita, 22, were married at the Rom an Catholic Church in Ermita, Manila.
2. They separated in fact in 1988. Subsequently, Erwin sued for annulment on the ground of Joselita’s psychological
incapacity.
3. The petition for annulment was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. Therein it is alleged that petitioner
ca me to realize that respondent was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of
their marriage, which incapacity existed at the time of the marriage although the same became manifest only
thereafter."Edwin specified that at the time of their marriage, respondent (Joselita Sali ta) was psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of their marriage in that she was unable to understand and
accept the demands made by his profession — that of a newly qualified Doctor of Medicine — upon petitioner’s time and
efforts so that she frequently complained of hi s lack of attention to her even to her mother, whose intervention caused
petitioner to lose his job. 4. Dissatisfied with the allegation in the petition, Joselita move d for a bill of particulars. She
argued that the "assertion (in the Bill of Particulars) is a statement of legal conclusion made by petitioner’s counsel and
not an averment of ‘ultimate facts,’ as required by the Rules of Court, from which such a conclusion may properly be
inferred . . . ."
4. But finding the questioned Bill of Pasuedrticulars adequate, the trial court is an order upholding its sufficiency and
directing Joselita to file her responsive pleading.
5. She filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court but the SC referred it to the CA. The CA denied her petition.
Issue: WON the Bill of Particulars submitted by herein respondent is of sufficient definiteness or particularity as to enable
herein petitioner to properly prepare her responsive pleading or for trial.
Held:
Yes. A complaint only needs to state the "ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause or causes of action."
9. Ultimate facts has been defined as "those facts which the expected evidence will support."
10 As stated by private respondent, "[t]he term does not refer to the details of probative matter or particulars of evidence
by which these material elements are to be established." It refers to "the facts which the evidence on the trial will prove,
and not the evidence which will be required to prove the existence of those facts." And a motion for bill of particulars will
not be granted if the complaint, while not very definite, nonetheless already states a sufficient cause of action.
11 A motion for bill of particulars may not call for matters which should form part of the proof of the complaint upon trial.
Such information may be obtained by other means.
1 2 We sustain the view of respondent Court of Appeals that the Bill of Particulars filed by private respondent is sufficient
to state a cause of action, and to require more details from private respondent would be to ask for information on
evidentiary matters. Indeed, petitioner has already been adequately apprised of private respondent’s cause of action
against her thus — . . . . (she) was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of their
marriage in that she was unable to understand and accept the demands made by his profession — that of a newly
qualified Doctor of Medicine — upon petitioner’s time and efforts so that she frequently complained of his lack of
attention to her even to her mother, whose intervention caused petitioner to lose his job. On the basis of the aforequoted
allegations, it is evident that petitioner can already prepare her responsive pleading or for tri al. Private respondent has
already alleged that "she (petitioner) was unable to understand and accept the demands made by his profession . . . upon
his time and efforts . . . " Certainly, she can respond to this. To demand for more details would indeed be asking for
information on evidentiary facts — facts necessary to prove essential or ultimate facts. 13 For sure, the additional facts
called for by petitioner regarding her particular acts or omissions would be evidentiary, and to obtain evidentiary matters
is not the function of a motion for bill of particulars.

Salita Vs Magtolis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Salita Vs Magtolis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Salita Vs Magtolis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CIVPRO [RULE 12 MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS]

Petitioner: Joselita Salita

You might also like