Ultimate facts are information essential to a plaintiff's right of action or a defendant's assertion of a defense.

The concept of ultimate facts used to be an essential part of preparing a pleading in a civil action. Until the late 1930s, the rules of civil procedure in federal and state courts required parties to plead on the basis of a statement of facts constituting the cause of action or defense. These ultimate facts alleged the substance of the cause of action and were distinguished from evidentiary facts, which concerned the particular events of the case, and conclusions of law. The highly technical distinctions among ultimate facts, evidentiary facts, and conclusions of law created great confusion and often led to the dismissal of cases based on a pleading mistake.

The development of these distinctions can be traced to the 1848 New York Code of Civil Procedure, which was largely drafted by David Dudley Field. During the next few decades, most of the states, except those on the East Coast, adopted what came to be known as the Field Code. The Field Code was a significant improvement over common-law systems of procedure. However, the code required that the complaint contain "a plain and concise statement of the facts constituting plaintiff's cause of action," and used the pleading as a way of narrowing and defining the dispute rather than as a general means of initiating a civil action.

Over time, however, code pleading became very technical and required the pleader to set forth the facts underlying and demonstrating the existence of the cause of action. The pleading of ultimate facts was necessary, while the inclusion of evidentiary facts and conclusions of law was improper. Judges and attorneys found it difficult, if not impossible, to draw meaningful and consistent distinctions among these three terms. With no clear dividing line between a fact that demonstrated a cause of action and one that introduced specific evidence, courts made formal and often arbitrary decisions that were unrelated to the merits of the case. Courts demanded a high degree of specificity and bound the parties to prove the ultimate facts alleged or lose the lawsuit. This requirement was particularly harsh because it forced a party to allege detailed facts early in the case when there was still uncertainty over what facts had occurred.

By the 1930s legal commentators agreed that the need to plead ultimate facts was hindering the cause of justice. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which were adopted in 1938, eliminated the ultimate fact requirement and changed the philosophy behind the plaintiff's complaint and the defendant's answer. In place of ultimate facts, rule 8(a) provides that the complaint shall contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Likewise, the defendant "shall state in short and plain terms" the defenses to the plaintiff's complaint. The rules do not require that only facts be alleged. Most states have adopted the federal rules in whole or in part, and the need to state ultimate facts in a pleading is no longer of great importance.

Ultimate fact - in a trial, a conclusion of fact which is logically deduced from evidence ("evidentiary facts"). Example: the evidentiary facts were that driver Larry Leadfoot a) exceeded the speed limit, b) drove over the double-line, c) skidded and lost control of his car; the ultimate fact was, therefore, Leadfoot was negligent. It is essential to introduce the evidentiary facts during the trial in order to prove the ultimate fact. A mere statement by a witness that "Leadfoot was negligent" is not sufficient, since it is an opinion of the witness and is not evidence.

Evidence - every type of proof legally presented at trial (allowed by the judge) which is intended to convince the judge and/or jury of alleged facts material to the case. It can include oral testimony of witnesses, including experts on technical matters, documents, public records, objects, photographs and depositions (testimony under oath taken before trial). It also includes so-called "circumstantial evidence" which is intended to create belief by showing surrounding circumstances which logically lead to a conclusion of fact.

Comments and arguments by the attorneys, statements by the judge and answers to questions which the judge has ruled objectionable are not evidence. Charts, maps and models which are used to demonstrate or explain matters are not evidence themselves, but testimony based upon such items and marks on such material may be evidence. Evidence must survive objections of opposing attorneys that it is irrelevant, immaterial or violates rules against "hearsay" (statements by a party not in court), and/or other technicalities.

Cause of Action - The fact or combination of facts that gives a person the right to seek judicial redress or relief against another. Also, the legal theory forming the basis of a lawsuit.

The cause of action is the heart of the complaint, which is the PLEADING that initiates a lawsuit. Without an adequately stated cause of action the plaintiff's case can be dismissed at the outset. It is not sufficient merely to state that certain events occurred that entitle the plaintiff to relief. All the elements of each cause of action must be detailed in the complaint. The claims must be supported by the facts, the law, and a conclusion that flows from the application of the law to those facts.

The cause of action is often stated in the form of a syllogism, a form of deductive reasoning that begins with a major premise ...

Extrinsic Evidence - Facts or information not embodied in a written agreement such as a will, trust, or contract.

Extrinsic evidence is similar to extraneous evidence, which is not furnished by the document in and of itself but is derived from external sources. In contract law, parol evidence is extrinsic evidence since it is not within a contract but, rather, is oral and outside the instrument.

Merit - A party's strict legal rights, excluding jurisdictional, personal, or technical aspects. The factual content of a matter, apart from emotional, contextual, or formal considerations.

The rules of procedure require that the complaint must make a concise statement of the ultimate facts or the essential facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of action. A fact is essential if it cannot be stricken out without leaving the statement of the cause of action inadequate. A complaint states a cause of action only when it has its three indispensable elements, namely: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and (3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant violative of the right of plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages. Cited in G.R. No. 129017, August 20, 2002

In determining whether the allegations of a complaint are sufficient to support a cause of action, it must be borne in mind that the complaint does not have to establish or allege the facts proving the existence of a cause of action at the outset; this will have to be done at the trial on the merits of the case (Del Bros Hotel Corporation v. CA, supra). If the allegations in a complaint can furnish a sufficient basis by which the complaint can be maintained, the same should not be dismissed regardless of the defenses that may be assessed by the defendants (Rava Dev�t Corp. v. CA, 211 SCRA 152 [1992] citing Consolidated Bank & Trust Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 197 SCRA 663 [1991]). To sustain a motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action, the complaint must show that the claim for relief does not exist rather than that a claim has been defectively stated or is ambiguous, indefinite or uncertain (Azur v. Provincial Board, 27 SCRA 50 [1969]). xxx. (Emphasis supplied) Cited in G.R. No. 130087. September 24, 2003

We are not convinced. It is fundamental that every element of the offense must be alleged in the complaint or information, and must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. What facts and circumstances are necessary to be stated must be determined by reference to the definitions and the essentials of the specific crimes. X x x

The distinction between the elements of the offense and the evidence of these elements is analogous or akin to the difference between ultimate facts and evidentiary facts in civil cases. 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. Applying this analogy to the case at bar, knowledge of insufficiency of funds is the ultimate fact, or element of the offense that needs to be proved, while dishonor of the check presented within ninety (90) days is merely the evidentiary fact of such knowledge. Cited in G.R. No. 143375. July 6, 2001