Salita vs Magtolis Facts:

Erwin Espinosa, 32, and Joselita Salita, 22, were married at the Rom an Catholic Church in Ermita, Manila.
1.

2. They separated in fact in 1988. Subsequently, Erwin sued for annul ment on the ground of Joselitas psychological incapacity. The petition for annulment was filed before the Regional Tri al Court of Quezon City. Therein it is alleged that petitioner ca me to realize that respondent was psychologically incapacitate d to comply with the essential marital obligations of their marr iage, which incapacity existed at the time of the marriage alth ough the same became manifest only thereafter."Edwin specifi ed that at the time of their marriage, respondent (Joselita Sali ta) was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essen tial marital obligations of their marriage in that she was unabl e to understand and accept the demands made by his professi on that of a newly qualified Doctor of Medicine upon petiti oners time and efforts so that she frequently complained of hi s lack of attention to her even to her mother, whose interventi on caused petitioner to lose his job.
3.

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 p etitioners counsel and not an averment of ultimate facts, as r equired by the Rules of Court, from which such a conclusion m ay properly be inferred . . . ." 4 But finding the questioned Bill of Particulars adequate, the trial court issued an order upholdi ng its sufficiency and directing Joselita to file her responsive pl eading. She filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court but the SC referred it to the CA. The CA denied her petition.
5.

Issue: WON the Bill of Particulars submitted by herein respondent is of sufficie nt definiteness or particularity as to enable herein petitioner to properl y prepare her responsive pleading or for trial.
Held: Yes.

A complaint only needs to state the "ultimate facts constit

uting the plaintiffs 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 no t refer to the details of probative matter or particulars of evidence by w hich these material elements are to be established." It refers to "the fa cts which the evidence on the trial will prove, and not the evidence whi ch will be required to prove the existence of those facts." And a motio n for bill of particulars will not be granted if the complaint, whi le not very definite, nonetheless already states a sufficient cau se of action. 11 A motion for bill of particulars may not call for matters which should form part of the proof of the complaint u pon trial. Such information may be obtained by other means. 1 2 We sustain the view of respondent Court of Appeals that the Bill of Part iculars filed by private respondent is sufficient to state a cause of actio n, and to require more details from private respondent would be to ask for information on evidentiary matters. Indeed, petitioner has already b een adequately apprised of private respondents cause of action agains t her thus . . . . (she) was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essent ial marital obligations of their marriage in that she was unable to under stand and accept the demands made by his profession that of a new ly qualified Doctor of Medicine upon petitioners time and efforts so t hat she frequently complained of his lack of attention to her even to he r mother, whose intervention caused petitioner to lose his job. On the basis of the aforequoted allegations, it is evident that p etitioner can already prepare her responsive pleading or for tri al. Private respondent has already alleged that "she (petitione r) was unable to understand and accept the demands made by his profession . . . upon his time and efforts . . . " Certainly, sh e can respond to this. To demand for more details would indee d be asking for information on evidentiary facts facts necess ary to prove essential or ultimate facts. 13 For sure, the additi onal facts called for by petitioner regarding her particular acts or omissions would be evidentiary, and to obtain evidentiary m atters is not the function of a motion for bill of particulars. 14