#1

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

G.R. No. 106429

June 13, 1994

FACTS:

Petitioner Joselita Salita and Respondent Erwin Espinosa were married on January 25, 1986. A
year later, their union turned sour. Erwin filed a petition for annulment on the ground of Joselita’s
psychological incapacity before the RTC of Quezon City. Erwin alleged that sometime in 1987, he realized
that Joselita was psychologically incapacitated 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. Joselita moved for a Bill of Particulars which the Trial Court granted.

In his Bill of Particulars, Edwin specified that Joselita was psychologically incapacitated to comply
with the essential marital obligations of their marriage in that she was unable to understand and accept the
demands made by Erwin’s profession (that of a newly qualified Doctor of Medicine). Joselita frequently
complained of Erwin’s lack of attention to her even to her mother, whose intervention caused Erwin to lose
his job.

Joselita was not contented with the Bill of Particulars. She argued that the assertion in the Bill of
Particulars is a statement of legal conclusion and not an averment of ultimate facts.

The Trial Court uphold the adequacy of the Bill of Particulars and direct Joselita to file her
responsive pleading. She filed a petition for  certiorari  with the Supreme Court. However, the SC referred
her petition to the Court of Appeals for resolution. The CA denied her petition.

Hence, this instant petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Bill of Particulars submitted by Erwin is sufficient to state a cause of action.

HELD:

Yes, the Bill of Particulars submitted by Erwin is sufficient to state a cause of action. A complaint
only needs to state the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause or causes of action. Ultimate facts are
those facts which the expected evidence will support. Ultimate facts are the essential and substantial facts
which either form the basis of the primary right and duty or which directly make up the wrongful acts or
omissions of the defendant, while evidentiary facts are those which tend to prove or establish
said ultimate facts.
 To require more details from Erwin would be to ask for information on evidentiary matters and to
obtain evidentiary matters is not the function of a motion for bill of particulars.
NOTE:
1997 Rules of Court
RULE 8 Sec. 1
Every pleading shall contain in a
methodical and logical form, a
plain, concise and direct
statement of the ultimate facts on
which the party pleading relies
for his claim or defense, as the
case may be, omitting the
statement of mere evidentiary
facts.
If a defense relied on is based
on law, the pertinent provisions
thereof and their applicability to
him shall be clearly and
concisely stated.
2019 Amendment Comment
Every pleading shall contain in a The pleading, such as the
methodical and logical form, a complaint, is not anymore limited
plain, concise and direct to ultimate facts.
statement of the ultimate facts,
including the evidence on which The pleading should contain the
the party pleading relies for his legal bases for the cause of
or her claim or defense, as the action or defense.
case may be.
If a cause of action or defense
relied on is based on law, the
pertinent provisions thereof and
their applicability to him or her
shall be clearly and concisely
stated.
 #2

FRANCISCO S. TANTUICO, JR., petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PRESIDENTIAL

COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, MATEO A. T. CAPARAS, AND THE
SANDIGANBAYAN, respondents.

G.R. No. 89114

December 2, 1991

FACTS:
Francisco Tantuico, Jr. was one of the defendants in a civil case filed by the Republic, as
represented by Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), for reconveyance, reversion,
accounting, restitution and damages on the theory that:
1. he acted in unlawful concert with the Marcoses in the misappropriation and theft of public funds,
plunder of the nation's wealth, extortion, blackmail, bribery, embezzlement and other acts of
corruption, betrayal of public trust and brazen abuse of power; 
2. he acted as dummy, nominee or agent, by allowing himself to be incorporator, director, board
member and/or stockholder of corporations beneficially held and/or controlled by the Marcoses; 
3. he acted singly or collectively, and/or in unlawful concert with one another, in flagrant breach of
public trust and of their fiduciary obligations as public officers, with gross and scandalous abuse of
right and power and in brazen violation of the Constitution and laws of the Philippines, embarked
upon a systematic plan to accumulate ill-gotten wealth; 
4. he is taking undue advantage of his position as Chairman of the Commission on Audit and with
grave failure to perform his constitutional duties as such Chairman, acting in concert with the
Marcoses, facilitated and made possible the withdrawals, disbursements and questionable use of
government funds; and
5. he acted as dummy, nominee and/or agent by allowing himself to be used as instrument in
accumulating ill-gotten wealth through government concessions, orders and/or policies prejudicial
to plaintiff, or to be incorporator, director, or member of corporations beneficially held and/or
controlled by the Marcoses, Benjamin Romualdez and Juliette Romualdez in order to conceal and
prevent recovery of assets illegally obtained.
Tantuico filed a Motion for a Bill of Particulars alleging that he is sued for acts allegedly committed
by him as (a) a public officer, (b) as a private individual, and (c) in both capacities, in a complaint couched
in too general terms and lacked of particulars that would inform him of the factual and legal bases thereof,
and that to enable him to understand and know with certainty the particular acts allegedly committed by him
so that he can intelligently prepare his responsive pleading and prepare for trial.
The Sandiganbayan denied Tantuico’s motion for a Bill of Particulars on the ground that the
particulars sought by him are evidentiary in nature.
ISSUE:
 Whether or not the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying Tantuico’s
motion for a Bill of Particulars

HELD:

Yes, the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying Tantuico’s motion for a
Bill of Particulars.

A complaint is a statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's cause or causes of action.
The complaint shall contain in a methodical and logical form a plain, concise and direct statement of the
ultimate facts on which the plaintiff relies for his claim, omitting the statement of mere evidentiary
facts. Its office, purpose or function is to inform the defendant clearly and definitely of the claims made
against him so that he may be prepared to meet the issues at the trial. The complaint should inform the
defendant of all the material facts on which the plaintiff relies to support his demand; it should state the
theory of a cause of action which forms the bases of the plaintiff's claim of liability.

Here, the allegations in the complaint are mere conclusions of law and presumptions unsupported
by factual premises.
With respect to the 1st allegation, nowhere in the complaint is there any allegation as to how such
duty came about, or what Tantuico's duties were, with respect to the alleged withdrawals and
disbursements or how Tantuico facilitated the alleged withdrawals, disbursements, or conversion of public
funds and properties, nor an allegation from where the withdrawals and disbursements came from, except
for a general allegation that they came from the national treasury.
With respect to the 2nd and 5th allegations, the complaint does not state which corporations
Tantuico is supposed to be a stockholder, director, member, dummy, nominee and/or agent and there is no
allegation as to how he became, or why he is perceived to be, a dummy, nominee or agent of such
corporations.

With respect to the 3rd allegation, nothing is said in the complaint about Tantuico's acts in execution
of the alleged "systematic plan to accumulate ill-gotten wealth", or which are supposed to constitute
"flagrant breach of public trust", "gross and scandalous abuse of right and power", and "violations of the
Constitution and laws of the Philippines". The complaint does not even allege what duties he failed to
perform, or the particular rights he abused.

With respect to the 4th allegation, the Chairman of the COA does not participate or personally audit
all disbursements and withdrawals of government funds, as well as transactions involving government
property. The averments in the complaint merely assume that Tantuico participated in or personally
audited all disbursements and withdrawals of government funds, and all transactions involving government
property.
Hence, Tantuico cannot intelligently prepare his responsive pleading and for trial.