SALITA vs.

MAGTOLIS
G.R. No. 106429
June 13, 1994
Facts:
Erwin Espinosa and Joselita Salita were married
but got separated in fact thereafter. Subsequently, Erwin
sued for annulment on the ground of Joselitas
psychological incapacity. It is alleged that Erwin came to
realize that Joselita 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. Erwin specified that at the time of their
marriage, Joselita 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 petitioners time
and efforts so that she frequently complained of his lack
of attention to her even to her mother, whose intervention
caused Erwin to lose his job.
Dissatisfied with the allegation in the petition,
Joselita moved for a bill of particulars. She argued that the
complaint made a statement of legal conclusion and not an
averment of ultimate facts, as required by the Rules of
Court, from which such a conclusion may properly be
inferred. The trial court upheld its sufficiency and directed
Joselita to file her responsive pleading.
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 complaint is sufficient 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 plaintiffs cause or causes of action.
The 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. 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.
Indeed, petitioner has already been adequately
apprised of Erwins cause of action against her. On the
basis of the allegations, it is evident that petitioner can
already prepare her responsive pleading or for trial.

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. 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.
TANTUICO vs. REPUBLIC
G.R. No. 89114
December 2, 1991
Facts:
A case was filed by the PCGG vs. the Marcoses &
Tantuico, the latter on the theory that he collaborated & aided the
Marcoses in concealing the ill-gotten wealth. Tantuico filed a motion
for a bill of particulars arguing that the allegations in the
complaint pertaining to him state only conclusions of fact
and law, not ultimate facts as required by the Rules of
Court. The SolGen opposed the motion saying that the matters
sought by Tantuico are evidentiary in nature & that the complaint was
sufficient as it contains the essential elements of a cause of action.
Issue:
WON the complaint is sufficient.
Held:
No. A complaint is defined as a concise statement of the
ultimate facts constituting the plaintiffs cause or causes of action. Its
office or purpose is to inform the defendant clearly & definitely of the
claims made against him so that he may be prepared to meet the
issues at trial. The complaint should inform the defendant all the
material facts on w/c the plaintiffs rely to support his demand The
complaint should inform the defendant of all the material facts on w/c
the plaintiff relies to support his demand; it should state the theory of a
cause of action w/c forms the bases of the plaintiffs claim of liability.
The term ultimate facts as used in the Rules of Court means the
essential facts constituting the plaintiffs cause of action.
Ultimate facts are important & substantial facts w/c either
directly form the basis of the primary right & duty, or w/c directly
make up the wrongful acts or omissions of the defendant. The term
does not refer to the details of probative matter or particulars of
evidence by w/c these material elements are to be established. It refers
to principal, determinate, constitutive facts, upon the existence of w/c,
the entire cause of action rests. While evidentiary facts are those facts
w/c are necessary for determination of the ultimate facts; they are the
premises upon w/c conclusions of ultimate facts are based.
In the case at bar, the SC finds the allegations of
the complaint pertaining to the herein petitioner deficient
because the averments therein are mere conclusions of law
or presumptions, unsupported by factual premises.
The respondents are thus ordered to prepare and
file a Bill of Particulars and should they fail to submit the
said Bill of Particulars, the Sandiganbayan is ordered to
exclude the herein petitioner as defendant in this case.
Cases 1-4 /3stan

PEOPLE vs. EBIAS

G.R. No. 127130
October 12, 2000
Facts:
Ronaldo and Tirso Narez, were shot which
resulted to the latters death. Ronaldo executed an
affidavit in which he identified the assailant as a certain
Boy Marantal. Ronaldo executed another affidavit in
which he said that Ernesto Ebias was the same Boy
Marantal who shot him and his cousin.
During the trial, Ronaldo reiterated in open court
that Ebias and Boy Marantal were one and the same
person. The TC rendered a decision finding Ebias guilty of
the crime of murder with frustrated murder and imposed
the penalty of death.
During his incarceration, Ebias filed a motion
seeking the appointment of a counsel de oficio for
Leonardo Eliseo, also a death convict at the NBP, who
wrote a letter confessing to the commission of the crime
for which Ebias was held liable. The Court denied Ebias
motion for lack of merit. Ebias moved for new trail on the
ground of newly-discovered evidence. He averred that
new and material evidence had been discovered by the
defense, consisting of a confession made by Eliseo. Such
evidence could not have been discovered and produced
during his trial because it was only after his conviction
that he came to know of Eliseos responsibility for the
crime and his willingness to confess. He asserted that
Eliseos confession would probably change the judgment
if it was introduced in evidence.

at stake. The High Court recognizes that court litigations

are primarily for the search of truth, and a liberal
interpretation of the rules by which both parties are given
the fullest opportunity to adduce proofs is the best way to
ferret out such truth. Hence, a liberal interpretation of the
rule granting a motion for new trial is called for.
Thus, the case is remanded to the RTC for the
purpose of allowing the presentation of the testimony
of Leonardo Eliseo and any evidence which the
prosecution may wish to present to rebut such testimony.
US vs. BLANCO
G.R. No. L-12435
November 9, 1917
Facts:
Blanco was convicted originally in the court of
the justice of peace of the municipality and fined on a
charge of violation of an ordinance of that municipality
prohibiting and penalizing the obstruction of the public
highways. On appeal to the Court of First Instance, the
accused was again convicted and fined.
The judgment of the Court of First Instance was
appealed, the counsel contending that a doubt arises as to
whether the ordinance in question was in force at the date
of its alleged violation. He added that since no affirmative
proof was offered in the lower court as to the date of
approval of the ordinance, the court had no evidence
before it on which to base a finding that the ordinance was
in force at the date of its alleged violation.
Issue:

Issue:
WON Eliseos confession constitutes newlydiscovered evidence warranting a new trial in favor of
Ebias.
Held:
Yes. For newly-discovered evidence to be a
ground for new trial, the following requisites must concur:
(a) the evidence is discovered after trial; (b) such evidence
could not have been discovered and produced at the trial
even with the exercise of reasonable diligence; and (c) the
evidence is material, not merely cumulative,
corroborative, or impeaching, and of such weight that, if
admitted, could probably change the judgment.
The uncorroborated testimony of a lone witness is
sufficient basis for the conviction of the accused if it is
credible, positive, and constitutes proof beyond reasonable
doubt that the latter is guilty. In this case, the trial court
relied primarily on the positive identification made by
Ronaldo in convicting Ebias.
The Court ruled that there is a need for a new trial
in order to determine the veracity of Ronaldo Narezs
positive identification vis--vis the alleged confession
made by Leonardo Eliseo since no less than a life is

Whether or not the CFI may take judicial notice of

the ordinance.
Held:
Yes, the court of a justice of the peace may, and
should, take judicial notice of the municipal ordinances in
force in the municipality wherein it sits, furthermore, an
appeal from the judgment of a court of the justice of the
peace the appellate courts may take judicial notice of
municipal ordinances in force in the municipality wherein
the case originated, and to that end may adopt the findings
and conclusions of the court of the justice of the peace in
that regard as developed by the record, in the absence of
affirmative proof that such findings and conclusions are
erroneous.

Cases 1-4 /3stan