You are on page 1of 3

TodayisSunday,February21,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
FIRSTDIVISION

G.R.No.106429June13,1994
JOSELITASALITA,petitioner,
vs.
HON.DELILAHMAGTOLIS,inhercapacityasJudgeoftheRTC,QuezonCity,Br.107,andERWIN
ESPINOSA,respondents.
AlfredoF.Tadiarforpetitioner.
Yolanda,QuisumbingJavellana&Associatesforprivaterespondent.

BELLOSILLO,J.:
ErwinEspinosa,32,andJoselitaSalita,22,weremarriedattheRomanCatholicChurchinErmita,Manila,on25
January1986.Ayearlater,theirunionturnedsour.Theyseparatedinfactin1988.Subsequently,Erwinsuedfor
annulmentonthegroundofJoselitaspsychologicalincapacity.
TheissuebeforeushoweverisnotthescopenoreventheinterpretationofArt.36oftheFamilyCode. 1 Rather,
theissueisthesufficiencyoftheallegationsinthepetitionforannulmentofmarriageandthesubsequentbillofparticulars
filedinamplificationofthepetition.

ThepetitionforannulmentwasfiledbeforetheRegionalTrialCourtofQuezonCityon7January1992.Thereinit
isallegedthat"[s]ometimein1987,petitionercametorealizethatrespondentwaspsychologicallyincapacitated
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." 2 Dissatisfied with the allegation in the petition,
Joselitamovedforabillofparticularswhichthetrialcourtgranted.3Subsequently,inhisBillofParticulars,Edwinspecified
that

. . . at the time of their marriage, respondent (Joselita Salita) was psychologically incapacitated to
complywiththeessentialmaritalobligationsoftheirmarriageinthatshewasunabletounderstand
andacceptthedemandsmadebyhisprofessionthatofanewlyqualifiedDoctorofMedicine
upon petitioners time and efforts so that she frequently complained of his lack of attention to her
eventohermother,whoseinterventioncausedpetitionertolosehisjob.
StillJoselitawasnotcontentedwiththeBillofParticulars.Shearguedthatthe"assertion(intheBillofParticulars)
is a statement of legal conclusion made by petitioners 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
questionedBillofParticularsadequate,thetrialcourtissuedanorderupholdingitssufficiencyanddirectingJoselitatofile
herresponsivepleading.

Joselita was not convinced. She filed a petition for certiorari with us. However, we referred her petition to the
CourtofAppealsforresolution.
On21July1992,theCourtofAppealsdeniedduecoursetoherpetitionthus
In the case under consideration, Espinosa has amplified Salitas alleged psychological incapacity in
hisbillofparticulars...
In our view, the aforesaid specification more than satisfies the Rules requirement that a complaint
must allege the ultimate facts constituting a plaintiffs cause of action. To require more details
thereof, to insist on a specification of Salitas particular conduct or behavior with the corresponding
circumstancesoftime,placeandpersonindicatingherallegedpsychologicalincapacitywouldbeto
ask for information on evidentiary matters. To obtain evidentiary details, Salita may avail herself of
thedifferentmodesofdiscoveryprovidedbytheRulesofCourt
(Rules24to28).

Whether Espinosas averments in his bill of particulars constitute psychological incapacity in the
contemplationoftheFamilyCodeisaquestionthatmayberesolvedinamotiontodismissorafter
trialonthemeritsofthecase,notinamotionforbillofparticulars.Andcertainly,thatmattercannot
beresolvedinthepresentpetition.5
Hence,theinstantpetitionforreviewoncertiorarifiledbyJoselitaSalitaquestioningtheResolutionoftheCourtof
Appealsdenyingduecoursetoherpetition.
Petitioner insists that the allegations in the Bill of Particulars constitute a legal conclusion, not an averment of
facts,andfailtopointoutthespecificessentialmaritalobligationssheallegedlywasnotabletoperform,andthus
rendertheBillofParticularsinsufficientifnotirrelevanttoherhusbandscauseofaction.Sherationalizesthather
insistenceonthespecificationofherparticularconductorbehaviorwiththecorrespondingcircumstancesoftime,
placeandpersondoesnotcallforinformationonevidentiarymattersbecausewithoutthesedetailsshecannot
adequatelyandintelligentlyprepareheranswertothepetition.
PrivaterespondentontheotherhandbelievesthathisallegationsintheBillofParticularsconstitutetheultimate
factswhichtheRulesofCourtrequiresatthispoint.Hedefinesultimatefactsas
...importantandsubstantialfactswhicheitherdirectlyformthebasisoftheprimaryrightandduty,
orwhichdirectlymakeuponthewrongfulactsoromissionsofthedefendant.Thetermdoesnotrefer
tothedetailsofprobativematterorparticularsofevidencebywhichthesematerialelementsareto
beestablished.Itreferstoprincipal,determinatefactsupontheexistenceofwhichtheentirecause
ofactionrests.6
Ultimatefactsareconclusionsdrawnfromintermediateandevidentiaryfacts,orallegationsofmixedlawand
fact they are conclusions from reflection and natural reasoning on evidentiary fact. The ultimate facts which
aretobepleadedaretheissuable,constitutive,ortraversiblefactsessentialtothestatementofthecauseof
actionthefactswhichtheevidenceonthetrialwillprove,andnottheevidencewhichwillberequiredtoprove
theexistenceofthosefacts...7

Private respondent further argues that "[c]onclusions of law and evidentiary matters need not be stated in the
complaint.Therulesofpleadinglimitthestatementofthecauseofactiononlytosuchoperativefactsaswould
giverisetotherightofactionoftheplaintifftoobtainreliefagainstthewrongdoer.Thedetailsofprobativematter
orparticularsofevidence,statementsoflaw,inferencesandargumentsneednotbestated."8
Inanutshell,theultimatequestioniswhethertheBillofParticularssubmittedbyhereinrespondentisofsufficient
definitenessorparticularityastoenablehereinpetitionertoproperlyprepareherresponsivepleadingorfortrial.
Acomplaintonlyneedstostatethe"ultimatefactsconstitutingtheplaintiffscauseorcausesofaction." 9 Ultimate
factshasbeendefinedas"thosefactswhichtheexpectedevidencewillsupport."10Asstatedbyprivaterespondent,"[t]he
termdoesnotrefertothedetailsofprobativematterorparticularsofevidencebywhichthesematerialelementsaretobe
established."Itrefersto"thefactswhichtheevidenceonthetrialwillprove,andnottheevidencewhichwillberequiredto
prove the existence of those facts." And a motion for bill of particulars will not be granted if the complaint, while not very
definite,nonethelessalreadystatesasufficientcauseofaction. 11Amotionforbillofparticularsmaynotcallformatters
whichshouldformpartoftheproofofthecomplaintupontrial.Suchinformationmaybeobtainedbyothermeans.12

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
respondentscauseofactionagainstherthus
....(she)waspsychologicallyincapacitatedtocomplywiththeessentialmaritalobligationsoftheir
marriageinthatshewasunabletounderstandandacceptthedemandsmadebyhisprofession
that of a newly qualified Doctor of Medicine upon petitioners time and efforts so that she
frequentlycomplainedofhislackofattentiontohereventohermother,whoseinterventioncaused
petitionertolosehisjob.
On the basis of the aforequoted allegations, it is evident that petitioner can already prepare her responsive
pleadingorfortrial.Privaterespondenthasalreadyallegedthat"she(petitioner)wasunabletounderstandand
acceptthedemandsmadebyhisprofession...uponhistimeandefforts..."Certainly,shecanrespondtothis.
To demand for more details would indeed be asking for information on evidentiary facts facts necessary to
proveessentialorultimatefacts. 13For sure, the additional facts called for by petitioner regarding her particular acts or
omissionswouldbeevidentiary,andtoobtainevidentiarymattersisnotthefunctionofamotionforbillofparticulars.14

WedistinguishtheinstantcasefromTantuico,Jr.v.Republic15wherewesaid
Furthermore, the particulars prayed for such as names of persons, names of corporations, dates,
amounts involved, a specification of property for identification purposes, the particular transactions
involving withdrawals and disbursements, and a statement of other material facts as would support
theconclusionsandinferencesinthecomplaint,arenotevidentiaryinnature.Onthecontrary,those
particulars are material facts that should be clearly and definitely averred in the complaint in order
thatthedefendantmay,infairness,beinformedoftheclaimsmadeagainsthimtotheendthathe

maybepreparedtomeettheissuesatthetrial.
The aforementioned pronouncement cannot apply to the instant case. That ruling involves alleged
"misappropriation and theft of public funds, plunder of the nations wealth, extortion, blackmail, bribery,
embezzlement, and other acts of corruption, betrayal of public trust and brazen abuse of power." The
respondents therein pray for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution and damages. There, the alleged
illicitactsshouldbefullydocumented.Theinstantcase,ontheotherhand,concernsmaritalrelationship.Itwould
beunreasonable,ifnotunfeeling,todocumenteachandeverycircumstanceofmaritaldisagreement.True,the
complainingspousewillhavetoprovehiscase,butthatwillnotcomeuntiltrialbegins.
Consequently, we have no other recourse but to order the immediate resumption of the annulment proceeding
whichhavealreadybeendelayedformorethantwoyearsnow,evenbeforeitcouldreachitstrialstage.Whether
petitioner is psychologically incapacitated should be immediately determined. There is no point in unreasonably
delayingtheresolutionofthepetitionandprolongingtheagonyoftheweddedcouplewhoaftercomingoutfrom
astormstillhavetherighttoarenewedblissfullifeeitheraloneorinthecompanyofeachother.
AwordonArt.36oftheFamilyCode.16Wedonotseetheneedtodefineorlimitthescopeoftheprovision.Notinthis
case,atleast.For,wearenotcalledupontodoso,theactualcontroversybeingthesufficiencyofthebillofparticulars.To
interprettheprovisionatthisjuncturewouldbetogiveanobiterdictumwhichisilltimed.Besides,itappearsthatpetitioner
in her memorandum has demonstrated a good grasp of what Art. 36 actually covers. Suffice it to say that Mme. Justice
SempioDiy,formerlyoftheCourtofAppealsandamemberoftheCivilCodeRevisionCommitteethatdraftedtheFamily
code,explains

The Committee did not give any examples of psychological incapacity for fear that the giving of
exampleswouldlimittheapplicabilityoftheprovisionundertheprincipleofejusdemgeneris.Rather,
the Committee would like the judge to interpret the provision on a casetocase basis, guided by
experience,thefindingsofexpertsandresearchersinpsychologicaldisciplines,andbydecisionsof
churchtribunalswhich,althoughnotbindingonthecivilcourts,maybegivenpersuasiveeffectsince
theprovisionwastakenfromCanonLaw.17
WHEREFORE, there being no reversible error, the instant petition is DENIED and the questioned Resolution of
respondentCourtofAppealsdated21July1992isAFFIRMED.
SOORDERED.
Cruz,Davide,Jr.,QuiasonandKapunan,JJ.,concur.

#Footnotes
1Art.36.Amarriagecontractedbyanypartywho,atthetimeofthecelebration,waspsychologically
incapacitatedtocomplywiththeessentialmaritalobligationsofmarriage,shalllikewisebevoideven
ifsuchincapacitybecomesmanifestonlyafteritssolemnization(AsamendedbyE.O.227).
2PetitionforAnnulmentofMarriagefiledbyErwinEspinosa,par.3Rollo,p.20.
3OrderissuedbyJudgeDelilahMagtolis,RegionalTrialCourt,Br.107,QuezonCityRollo,p.26.
4OppositiontotheSupposedBillofParticularsSubmittedbyPetitioner,p.2,par.6Rollo,p.30.
5ResolutionpennedbyAssociateJusticeAlfredoL.Benipayo,concurredinbyAssociateJustices
FidelP.PurisimaandQuirinoD.AbadSantos,Jr.,oftheNinthDivision.
6Francisco,TheRevisedRulesofCourtinthePhilippines,Vol.I,p.435.
7Id.,citing71C.J.S.34.
8MemorandumforPrivateRespondent,p.10Rollo,p.197.
9Sec.3,Rule6,RulesofCourt.
10BlacksLawDictionary,FourthEd.,citingMcDuffiev.CaliforniaTehamaLandCorporation,138
Cal.App.245,32P.2d385,386.
11Paras,RulesofCourtAnnotated,Vol.I,SecondEd.,1989,p.320.
12Moran,CommentsontheRulesofCourt,1979Ed.,Vol.1,p.397,citing
W.J.DillmerTransferCo.v.InternationalBrotherhoodofTeamsters,Chauffeurs,Warehousemen
andHelpersofAmerica,8Fed,RulesService,
p.163,USDist.Ct.,W.D.Pa.,6October1944.
13BlacksLawDictionary,FourthEd.,citingPeopleexrel.Hudson&M.R.Co.v.Sexton,Supp.,44
N.Y.S.2d884,885.