![]() Hence, the instant petition for review on certiorari filed by Joselita Salita questioning the Resolution of the Court of Appeals denying due course to her petition. And certainly, that matter cannot be resolved in the present petition. Whether Espinosa’s averments in his bill of particulars constitute psychological incapacity in the contemplation of the Family Code is a question that may be resolved in a motion to dismiss or after trial on the merits of the case, not in a motion for bill of particulars. To obtain evidentiary details, Salita may avail herself of the different modes of discovery provided by the Rules of Court To require more details thereof, to insist on a specification of Salita’s particular conduct or behavior with the corresponding ‘circumstances of time, place and person’ indicating her alleged psychological incapacity would be to ask for information on evidentiary matters. In our view, the aforesaid specification more than satisfies the Rules’ requirement that a complaint must allege the ultimate facts constituting a plaintiff’s cause of action. In the case under consideration, Espinosa has amplified Salita’s alleged psychological incapacity in his bill of particulars. On 21 July 1992, the Court of Appeals denied due course to her petition thus. However, we referred her petition to the Court of Appeals for resolution. She filed a petition for certiorari with us. ![]() ![]() ![]() " 4 But finding the questioned Bill of Particulars adequate, the trial court issued an order upholding its sufficiency and directing Joselita to file her responsive pleading. 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, from which such a conclusion may properly be inferred. Still Joselita was not contented with the Bill of Particulars. at the time of their marriage, respondent (Joselita Salita) 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. 3 Subsequently, in his Bill of Particulars, Edwin specified that. Therein it is alleged that "ometime in 1987, petitioner came to realize that respondent 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." 2 Dissatisfied with the allegation in the petition, Joselita moved for a bill of particulars which the trial court granted. The petition for annulment was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City on 7 January 1992. 1 Rather, the issue is the sufficiency of the allegations in the petition for annulment of marriage and the subsequent bill of particulars filed in amplification of the petition. The issue before us however is not the scope nor even the interpretation of Art. Subsequently, Erwin sued for annulment on the ground of Joselita’s psychological incapacity. Yolanda, Quisumbing-Javellana & Associates for private respondent.Įrwin Espinosa, 32, and Joselita Salita, 22, were married at the Roman Catholic Church in Ermita, Manila, on 25 January 1986. DELILAH MAGTOLIS, in her capacity as Judge of the RTC, Quezon City, Br.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |