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.

FACTS

Erwin Espinosa and Joselita Salita were married on January 25, 1986. They separated in fact in 1988. Subsequently, Erwin filed a petition for annulment of marriage on January 7, 1992, before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, on the ground of Joselita’s psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. The petition alleged that the incapacity existed at the time of the marriage but became manifest only thereafter. Joselita moved for a bill of particulars, which the trial court granted. In his Bill of Particulars, Erwin specified that Joselita’s psychological incapacity consisted in her being “unable to understand and accept the demands made by his profession — that of a newly qualified Doctor of Medicine — upon petitioner’s time and efforts so that she frequently complained of his lack of attention to her even to her mother, whose intervention caused petitioner to lose his job.” Joselita argued this was a legal conclusion, not an averment of ultimate facts, and moved to strike it out. The trial court found the Bill of Particulars adequate. Joselita filed a petition for certiorari, which was referred to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals denied her petition, holding the specification was sufficient and that demanding more details would call for evidentiary matters. Joselita then filed the instant petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Bill of Particulars submitted by private respondent Erwin Espinosa is of sufficient definiteness or particularity as to enable petitioner Joselita Salita to properly prepare her responsive pleading or for trial.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The Bill of Particulars was held sufficient. The Court ruled that the allegations constituted ultimate facts, not mere legal conclusions or evidentiary details. Ultimate facts are the principal, determinate facts upon which the cause of action rests, not the details of probative matter or evidence by which these facts are to be established. The specification that Joselita “was unable to understand and accept the demands made by his profession… upon petitioner’s time and efforts…” adequately apprised her of the cause of action, enabling her to prepare a responsive pleading. To require more details, such as specific acts or omissions with circumstances of time, place, and person, would be to ask for evidentiary matters, which is not the function of a bill of particulars. The distinction was made from cases involving complex financial transactions where greater specificity is required; marital relationship cases do not demand the same level of documented detail at the pleading stage. The Court emphasized that the sufficiency of the allegations to constitute psychological incapacity under Article 36 is a matter for resolution in a motion to dismiss or after trial, not in a motion for a bill of particulars. The proceeding for annulment was ordered to resume immediately.