N eJoselita Salita Vs. Hon.

Magtolis and Erwin Espinosa

Facts:
Petitioner and Private Respondent Espinosa were married on 1986 and separated 2 years after.
Espinosa sued for annulment on the ground of Salita’s psychological Incapacity. The RTC of
Quezon City granted for Salita’s motion for a Bill of Particulars. Espinosa specified in the Bill of
Particulars the incapacity of Salita in being “unable to understand and accept the demands by
his profession’ whose intervention caused Espinosa to lose his Job as a Doctor of Medicine. RTC
and the Appellate Court found that the Bill of Particulars adequate and issued an order
upholding its sufficiency. Salita was not contented and filed for certiorari regarding the
insufficiency of the Bill of Particulars arguing 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, from which such a conclusion may properly be
inferred.

Issue:
Whether or not the Bill of Particulars which specified the facts on the psychological incapacity
of the petitioner sufficient?

Ruling:
The Court sustains finding of CA that Espinosas’ Bill of Particulars is Sufficient and to ask for
more is asking for evidentiary matters (Factum Probans). RTC to resume on the annulment
proceedings.

Note:
Rule 12, Section 6. Bill a part of pleading. — A bill of particulars becomes part of the pleading
for which it is intended. Evidence Submitted with the Filing of Complaint and Answer

(Rules 7 and 11) Parties to a case are now required to attach to their opening pleading (i.e., the
complaint for the plaintiff or the answer for the defendant) copies of all the pieces of evidence
supporting their claims and defenses. They must also indicate the names of intended witnesses
and the summaries of their testimonies.
Balitaan vs CFI and Rita De Los Reyes
(Factum Probandum in Pleading; Elements of Estafa in Information did not coincide with
testimonial evidence)

Facts:
Petitioner, Balitaan, filed for Estafa against Rita De Los Reyes. Balitaan was the owner of a dress
shop in which the accused, De Los Reyes was an employee of. The dress shop mended and
made dresses for a business establishment in Makati. De Los Reyes collected a sum of 127.58
pesos for the payment of the dresses made by Balitaan and to deliver the amount to the latter.
Despite repeated demands, De Los Reyes, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously misappropriate,
misapply, and convert the sum to her own use and benefit to the damage and prejudice of
Balitaan. In a testimony during a direct examination of Balitaan, in the MTC, the counsel for the
accused moved to strike out the petitioner’s testimonies but the trial court denied the motion.
The CFI nullified the MTC decision and ordered the testimonies to be stricken out. Hence, this
petition for certiorari.

Issue:
Whether or not the testimonial evidence corresponded with the allegations in the Information
which did not state the three checks.
Whether or not the mode or form of Estafa in the information is correct?

Ruling:
The Court reversed and set aside the decision of the respondent Court, and held that the
existence of the three checks need not be alleged in the Information. They are evidentiary
matters which is not required therein.

It is fundamental that every element of which the offense is composed must be alleged in the
complaint or information. It is true that estafa under paragraph 1(b) is essentially a different
offense from estafa under paragraph 2(a). To sustain a conviction for estafa under paragraph
2(a), on the other hand, deceit or false representation to defraud and the damage caused
thereby must be proved. This does not mean, however, that presentation of proof of deceit in a
prosecution for estafa under paragraph 1(b) is not allowed. Abuse of confidence and deceit may
co- exist. The presence of deceit would not change the whole theory of the prosecution that
estafa with abuse of confidence was committed. Besides, in estafa by means of deceit, it is
essential that the false statement or fraudulent representation constitutes the very cause or
the only motive which induces the complainant to part with the thing. MTC properly denied, CA
decision reversed and set aside.

(Rules 7 and 11) Parties to a case are now required to attach to their opening pleading (i.e., the
complaint for the plaintiff or the answer for the defendant) copies of all the pieces of evidence
supporting their claims and defenses. They must also indicate the names of intended witnesses
and the summaries of their testimonies.
Parañaque Kings vs CA, Santos and Raymundo
(Factum Probans; Motion to Dismiss for lack of cause of action)

Facts:
Private Respondent, Santos owned parcels of land and leased it to Parañaque Kings. However
Santos sold the property to private Respondent, Raymundo even with the contract of lease to
petitioner stating, First Option. Petitioner filed for Breach of Contract. Trial court dismissed the
complaint for lack of a valid cause of action. Appellate court sustained respondent’s motion to
dismiss on the allegations that Santos had offered the subject property for sale to the petitioner
prior to Raymundo.

Issue:
Whether or not the complaint stated a valid cause of action?

Ruling:
We do not agree with respondents' contention that the issue involved is purely factual. The
complaint sufficiently alleges an actional contractual breach on the part of the respondents,
under Part 9. The principal legal question, as stated earlier, is whether the complaint filed by
herein petitioner in the lower court states a valid cause of action. Since such question assumes
the facts alleged in the complaint as true, it follows that the determination thereof is one of
law, and not of facts. A careful examination of the complaint reveals that it sufficiently alleges
an actionable contractual breach on the part of private respondents. Under paragraph 9 of the
contract petitioner, was granted the "first option or priority" to purchase the leased properties
in case Santos decided to sell. But on September 21, 1988, Santos sold said properties to
Respondent Raymundo without first offering these to petitioner. conclusion that the complaint
states a valid cause of action for breach of the right of first refusal and that the trial court
should thus not have dismissed the complaint, we find no more need to pass upon the question
of whether the complaint states a cause of action for damages or whether the complaint is
barred by estoppel or laches. As these matters require presentation and/or determination of
facts, they can be best resolved after trial on the merits. Trial court and Court of Appeals erred
in dismissing the complaint and hereby reversed and set aside.
Sinfroso De Gala vs. Pedro De Gala, Josefa Alabastro and Generoso de Gala
(Factum Probans; Stenographic notes as part of evidence)

Facts:
This case is to compel the defendant pedro De Gala to recognize the plaintiff as his natural son.
Complaint alleged that the plaintiff had been in uninterrupted possession of the status of a
natural child of defendant which latter denied. the defendant objected on admitting an
evidence from a stenographic notes from another case. upon the ground that it was
"impertinent." The lower court sustained the objection. The lower court sustained the
objection. RTC Dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint and absolved defendant from all liability. Plaintiff
appealed but defendant died, hence the substitution by the spouse and only legitimate son as
defendants.

Issue:
Whether or not Exhibit C (stenographic notes) was admissible as evidence.

Ruling:
While it is true that such admission of the defendant's only legitimate son would not, of itself,
be sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to a compulsory recognition by the defendant as his natural
child, yet it should have been admitted in evidence as a factum probans, which would help to
establish the factum probandum — the uninterrupted possession of the status of a natural
child. For that purpose Exhibit C was perhaps admissible. In the present case there are no
indications that the defendant Pedro de Gala did not intend to recognize the plaintiff as his
natural son. On the contrary, it clearly appears that he had always treated the plaintiff as a son;
and his only legitimate son, Generoso, had also treated the plaintiff as a brother. We are fully
persuaded that the facts proven in the present case clearly establish the uninterrupted
possession by the plaintiff of the status of a natural son of the defendant Pedro de Gala. the
judgment of the lower court is hereby revoked, with the costs of this instance against the
appellees, and it is hereby ordered and decreed that a judgment be entered, requiring the
appellees, Josefa Alabastro and Generoso de Gala, to recognize and acknowledge the appellant,
Sinforoso de Gala, as the natural son of the deceased Pedro de Gala.