Short answer. No, not in detail. Section 3 of Rule 8 says a general averment that all conditions precedent were performed or occurred is sufficient in any pleading — you don't need to itemize each one specifically at the pleading stage, though the opposing party can still specifically deny that a particular condition was actually met.
What the law says
In any pleading, a general averment of the performance or occurrence of all conditions precedent shall be sufficient.
Rule 8, Section 3 — Conditions precedent. Read the full provision →
A general averment suffices
Section 3 simplifies what would otherwise be a burdensome pleading requirement: in any pleading, a general averment of the performance or occurrence of all conditions precedent shall be sufficient. Conditions precedent are steps or events that must happen before a cause of action becomes ripe for suit — such as required prior demand, exhaustion of administrative remedies, or barangay conciliation in appropriate cases. Rather than requiring a party to plead the fact and manner of satisfying each one individually, a general statement that all such conditions were met is enough. This relaxed pleading standard binds the plaintiff pleading the claim; it does not tell the plaintiff which conditions precedent actually apply to a given cause of action, a question left to the substantive law creating the underlying right being sued upon.
What this means in practice
A plaintiff can simply allege, in general terms, that all conditions precedent to filing the action have been complied with, without detailing the specifics of each condition and how it was satisfied. This keeps complaints from becoming bogged down in procedural minutiae about prerequisites that are often not genuinely disputed, while still requiring that the general averment be made — silence on the issue is not the same as compliance with Section 3, and a complaint that says nothing at all about conditions precedent has not satisfied even this reduced burden. A defendant facing such a silent complaint may raise the omission as a defense, which can expose the complaint to dismissal for failure to comply with a condition precedent to filing suit, even though the underlying condition might well have actually been satisfied in fact.
The averment can still be contested
A general averment under Section 3 is sufficient for pleading purposes, but that does not make it conclusive — the opposing party can still specifically deny that a particular condition precedent was actually satisfied, putting the matter at issue for proof at trial. The section lowers the pleading burden; it does not eliminate the underlying substantive requirement that conditions precedent actually be met before the action is viable, so the plaintiff still has to be ready to prove compliance if it is challenged. This split between a light pleading burden and a real proof burden is a recurring pattern across several similarly worded provisions in the same Rule.