Facts:
Erwin Espinosa and Joselita Salita were married. A
year later, their union turned sour and they separated in fact. Subsequently,
Erwin sued for annulment on the ground that Joselita was psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of their
marriage although the same became manifest only thereafter. Dissatisfied with
the allegation in the petition, Joselita moved for a bill of particulars which
the trial court granted. Subsequently, in his bill of particulars, Edwin
specified that at the time of their marriage, 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
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.
Still 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 made by petitioner’s counsel and not an averment
of ultimate facts as required by the Rules of Court.
The trial court issued an order upholding its
sufficiency and directing Joselita to file her responsive pleading.
The petition for certiorari was denied due course by
the Court of Appeals.
Hence, the instant petition for review on certiorari.
Petitioner insist that the allegations in the Bill of Particulars constitute a
legal conclusion, not an averment of facts, and fails to point out the specific
essential marital obligations she allegedly was not able to perform, and thus
render it insufficient if not irrelevant to her husband’s cause of action. She
rationalizes that her insistence on the specification of her particular conduct
or behavior with the corresponding circumstances of time, place and person does
not call for information on evidentiary matters because without these details
she cannot adequately and intelligently prepare her answer to the petition.
Issue:
Whether or not the allegations in the petition for
annulment of marriage and the subsequent bill of particulars filed in
amplification of the petition is sufficient.
Ruling:
Yes.
Private respondent has already alleged that
“petitioner was unable to understand and accept the demands made by his
profession x x x upon his time and efforts x x x x” Certainly, she can respond
to this. 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 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.
Ultimate facts have been defined as those facts which
the expected evidence will support. As stated by private respondent, the term
does not refer to the details of probative matter or particular 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.
There being no reversible error, the instant petition
is denied and the question resolution of Court of Appeals is affirmed.
No comments:
Post a Comment