Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 98 views

    Santos Jr. Vs Liwag

    Uploaded by

    sweet dude
    1) The plaintiff filed a complaint seeking to annul certain documents, alleging they were executed through deceit, fraud, and other means. However, the complaint did not state any specific facts to support these allegations. 2) The defendant filed a motion for a bill of particulars to get more details on the vague claims. The trial court granted this motion, but the plaintiff failed to provide the bill of particulars. 3) The trial court then dismissed the complaint for failing to comply with its order to provide the bill of particulars. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding the trial court acted properly within its discretion.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Santos Jr. Vs Liwag

    Uploaded by

    sweet dude
    98 views1 page
    1) The plaintiff filed a complaint seeking to annul certain documents, alleging they were executed through deceit, fraud, and other means. However, the complaint did not state any specific facts to support these allegations. 2) The defendant filed a motion for a bill of particulars to get more details on the vague claims. The trial court granted this motion, but the plaintiff failed to provide the bill of particulars. 3) The trial court then dismissed the complaint for failing to comply with its order to provide the bill of particulars. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding the trial court acted properly within its discretion.

    Original Description:

    civ pro digest

    Original Title

    santos jr. vs liwag

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The plaintiff filed a complaint seeking to annul certain documents, alleging they were executed through deceit, fraud, and other means. However, the complaint did not state any specific facts to support these allegations. 2) The defendant filed a motion for a bill of particulars to get more details on the vague claims. The trial court granted this motion, but the plaintiff failed to provide the bill of particulars. 3) The trial court then dismissed the complaint for failing to comply with its order to provide the bill of particulars. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding the trial court acted properly within its discretion.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    98 views1 page

    Santos Jr. Vs Liwag

    Uploaded by

    sweet dude
    1) The plaintiff filed a complaint seeking to annul certain documents, alleging they were executed through deceit, fraud, and other means. However, the complaint did not state any specific facts to support these allegations. 2) The defendant filed a motion for a bill of particulars to get more details on the vague claims. The trial court granted this motion, but the plaintiff failed to provide the bill of particulars. 3) The trial court then dismissed the complaint for failing to comply with its order to provide the bill of particulars. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding the trial court acted properly within its discretion.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    le 12 – Motions for Bill of Particulars • RULES ON BILL OF PARTICULARS ON THE GROUND OF VAGUE

    COMPLAINT o If an action (like this case) is one for the annulment of documents
    1. SANTOS V. LIWAG (G.R. No. L-24238 November 28, 1980) that have been allegedly executed by reason of deceit, machination, false
    pretenses, misrepresentation, threats, and other fraudulent means. o Deceit,
    DOCTRINE: The allowance of a motion for a more definite statement or bill of machination, false pretenses, misrepresentation, and threats, however, are
    particulars rests within the sound judicial discretion of the court and, as usual in largely conclusions of law and mere allegations thereof without a statement of the
    matters of a discretionary nature, the ruling of the trial court in that regard will facts to which such terms have reference are not sufficient. The allegations must
    not be reversed unless there has been a palpable abuse of discretion or a clearly state the facts and circumstances from which the fraud, deceit, machination, false
    erroneous order. EMERGENCY RECIT (Very short case – please refer to the facts pretenses, misrepresentation, and threats may be inferred as conclusions. § In his
    below) complaint, the appellant merely averred that all the documents sought to be
    annulled were all executed through the use of deceits, machination, false
    FACTS: • June 8, 1964: Jose Santos filed a complaint against Lorenzo Liwag with
    pretenses, misrepresentations, threats, and other fraudulent means without the
    the CFI of Manila, which seeks to annul certain documents which were alleged to
    particular-facts on which alleged fraud, deceit, machination, or misrepresentations
    be done with malice, threats, false pretenses, machination, misrepresentations,
    are predicated.
    and other fraudulent means, with damages and costs.
    • FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER TO FILE OF A BILL OF
    • July 4, 1964: Santos filed a motion asking the court to order Liwag (petitioner)
    PARTICULARS RESULTS IN DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT o Hence, it was
    to submit bill of particulars on certain allegations of the complaint believed to be
    proper for the trial court to grant the defendant's motion for a bill of particulars,
    vague and conflicting, and that he be informed of the charges filed against him to
    and when the plaintiff failed to comply with the order, the trial court correctly
    prepare an intelligent and proper pleading necessary and appropriate in the
    dismissed the complaint.
    premises

    • Liwag opposed the said motion and said that the allegations in the complaint
    filed are sufficient and contains the facts needed for a cause of action to exist and
    Santos’ motion is indeed evidentiary in nature Trial Court

    • Granted the motion and directed the plaintiff to submit a bill of particulars with
    respect to the paragraphs specified in defendant’s motion

    • When plaintiff failed to comply with the order of the court, the complaint was
    dismissed with costs against the plaintiff

    ISSUE: 1. WON the trial court erred in granting the motion for bill of particulars
    filed by Liwag.

    HELD/RATIO: 1. NO. • BILL OF PARTICULARS ARE DISCRETIONARY UPON


    THE COURTS o The allowance of a motion for a more definite statement or bill of
    particulars rests within the sound judicial discretion of the court and, as usual in
    matters of a discretionary nature, the ruling of the trial court in that regard will
    not be reversed unless there has been a palpable abuse of discretion or a clearly
    erroneous order. o Complaint was indeed drawn and suffers from vagueness and
    generalization to enable the defendant properly to prepare a responsive pleading
    and to clarify issues and aid the court in an orderly and expeditious disposition in
    the case.

    You might also like