View full case

JOSELITA SALITA v. DELILAH MAGTOLIS

FACTS:

Erwin Espinosa and Joselita Salita were married in 1986 but separated in 1988. Erwin filed a petition for annulment of their marriage citing Joselita's psychological incapacity. In response, Joselita requested for a bill of particulars to further specify the allegations in the petition. Erwin submitted a Bill of Particulars asserting that Joselita failed to understand and accept the demands of his medical profession. The trial court ruled in favor of Erwin, finding the Bill of Particulars adequate and instructing Joselita to file her responsive pleading.

Joselita then resorted to the Court of Appeals, presenting a petition for certiorari. However, the Court of Appeals did not give due course to her petition. As a result, Joselita appealed the case to the Supreme Court by filing a petition for review on certiorari. In her petition, Joselita argued that the allegations provided in the Bill of Particulars constituted a legal conclusion and were insufficient to support Erwin's cause of action. On the other hand, Erwin contended that the allegations supplied in the Bill of Particulars were ultimate facts in accordance with the Rules of Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the allegations in the bill of particulars constitute a legal conclusion or an averment of facts

  2. Whether the bill of particulars is sufficient to support the husband's cause of action for annulment of marriage

RULING:

  1. The Court of Appeals held that the allegations in the bill of particulars constituted the ultimate facts required by the Rules of Court. It emphasized that requiring more details, such as specific conduct or behavior with corresponding circumstances, would be asking for information on evidentiary matters. The Court also stated that whether the husband's averments in the bill of particulars constitute psychological incapacity under the Family Code is a matter that may be resolved in a motion to dismiss or after trial, not in a motion for bill of particulars.

PRINCIPLES:

  • In a bill of particulars, the ultimate facts constituting a plaintiff's cause of action must be alleged, not the evidentiary details. The purpose of a bill of particulars is to provide reasonable particularity so that the opposing party can prepare its responsive pleading.

  • The sufficiency of the allegations in a petition for annulment of marriage and the subsequent bill of particulars should be determined based on whether they sufficiently state the ultimate facts to support the cause of action, not on whether they provide specific evidentiary details.

  • The determination of whether the facts alleged in the bill of particulars constitute psychological incapacity under the Family Code should be made in a motion to dismiss or after trial, not in a motion for bill of particulars.