Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Salita vs. Magtolis Digest

    Uploaded by

    Vince Albert Tante
    75 views1 page
    1) Joselita Salita filed a petition for annulment against Erwin Espinosa. When Erwin filed his bill of particulars in response, Joselita argued it did not contain sufficient details. 2) The trial court found Erwin's bill of particulars to be adequate. Joselita then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, which was referred to the Court of Appeals and denied. 3) The Supreme Court then ruled that Erwin's bill of particulars provided sufficient details of the ultimate facts of the case and was not required to include evidentiary facts, which could be obtained through other means like discovery. The petition was denied.

    Original Description:

    evidence

    Original Title

    2. Salita vs. Magtolis digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Joselita Salita filed a petition for annulment against Erwin Espinosa. When Erwin filed his bill of particulars in response, Joselita argued it did not contain sufficient details. 2) The trial court found Erwin's bill of particulars to be adequate. Joselita then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, which was referred to the Court of Appeals and denied. 3) The Supreme Court then ruled that Erwin's bill of particulars provided sufficient details of the ultimate facts of the case and was not required to include evidentiary facts, which could be obtained through other means like discovery. The petition was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    75 views1 page

    Salita vs. Magtolis Digest

    Uploaded by

    Vince Albert Tante
    1) Joselita Salita filed a petition for annulment against Erwin Espinosa. When Erwin filed his bill of particulars in response, Joselita argued it did not contain sufficient details. 2) The trial court found Erwin's bill of particulars to be adequate. Joselita then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, which was referred to the Court of Appeals and denied. 3) The Supreme Court then ruled that Erwin's bill of particulars provided sufficient details of the ultimate facts of the case and was not required to include evidentiary facts, which could be obtained through other means like discovery. The petition was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Tante, Vince Albert S.

    17-101636

    G.R. No. 106429. June 13, 1994.*

    JOSELITA SALITA, petitioner, vs. HON. DELILAH MAGTOLIS, in her capacity as Judge of the RTC, Quezon
    City, Br. 107, and ERWIN ESPINOSA, respondents. Salita vs. Magtolis

    Facts:
    A petition for annulment was filed Erwin Espinosa before the Regional Trial Court. Dissastisfied
    with the allegation in the petition, Joselita moved for a bill of particulars which the trial court granted.
    Erwin filed a bill of particulars which contains allegation sufficient to support it, Joselita was still not
    contented. She argued that the “assertion 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.”

    The court however found that questioned Bill of Particulars is adequate, thus, issued an order
    upholding its sufficiency and directing Joselita to file her responsive pleading. Joselita instead filed a
    certiorari in the Supreme Court which was referred back to the CA; the appellate court denied it.

    Hence, the instant petition for review on certiorari.

    Issue:

    Whether or not 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

    Ruling:

    Yes

    A complaint only needs to state the “ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause or causes of
    action.” Ultimate facts has been defined as “those facts which the expected evidence will support.” 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. 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.

    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.

    Petition denied.

    You might also like