Format of the Case Digest

I. Caption. This includes the title of the case, the date it was decided, and citation.
Include also the petitioner, respondent, and the ponente.
II. Facts. There is no need to include all the facts. Just include those that are relevant to
the subject.
III. Issues. Include only those that are relevant. Issues are usually framed in the form of
questions that are answerable by "yes" or "no," for example, "Is the contract void?"
Sometimes, students frame the question by starting it with the word "whether," for
example, "Whether the contract is void" or "Whether or not the contract is void." The
answer to the question has to be answered in the ruling.
IV. Ruling. This usually starts with a "yes" or a "no." This is the answer to the question/s
involving the issue. After the categorical yes/no answer, the reason for the decision will
be explained.
V. Concurring and Dissenting Opinions. This part is optional, but it would help to include
them because there are professors who ask for separate opinions in recitations.

Sample Case Digest

DOMINGO VS. COURT OF APPEALS
226 SCRA 572
Petitioner: Roberto Domingo
Respondents: Court of Appeals and Delia Soledad Avera
Ponente: J. Romero
FACTS:
On May 29, 1991, private respondent Delia Soledad A. Domingo filed the petition
entitled "Declaration of Nullity of Marriage and Separation of Property" against Roberto
Domingo. The petition, which was filed before Pasig RTC, alleged the following:
(a) they were married on November 29, 1976;
(b) unknown to her (Delia), he had a previous marriage with Emerina dela Paz on April
25, 1969 which marriage is valid and still existing;
(c) she came to know of the prior marriage only sometime in 1983 when Emerina sued
them for bigamy;
(d) since 1979, she has been working in Saudi Arabia and is only able to stay in the
Philippines when she would avail of the one-month annual vacation leave granted by
her employer;
(e) Roberto has been unemployed and completely dependent upon her for support and
subsistence;
(f) Her personal properties amounting to P350,000.00 are under the possession of
Roberto, who disposed some of the said properties without her knowledge and consent;
(g) while on her vacation, she discovered that he was cohabiting with another woman.
Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the declaration of their marriage,
which is void ab initio, is superfluous and unnecessary. He further suggested that
private respondent should have filed an ordinary civil action for the recovery of the
properties alleged to have been acquired by their union.
RTC and CA dismissed the petitioner's motion for lack of merit.
ISSUES:
1) Whether or not a petition for judicial delaration of a void marriage is necessary. (If in
the affirmative, whether the same should be filed only for purpose of remarriage.)
2) Whether or not the petition entitled "Declaration of Nullity of Marriage and Separation
of Property" is the proper remedy of private respondent to recover certain real and
personal properties allegedlybelonging to her exclusively.
HELD:
1) Yes. The nullification of a marriage for the purpose of contracting another cannot be
accomplished merely on the basis of the perception of both parties or of one that their
union is defective. Were this so, this inviolable social institution would be reduced to a
mockery and would rest on a very shaky foundation.
On the other hand, the clause "on the basis solely of a final judgment delaring such
marriage void" in Article 40 of the Code denotes that such final judgment declaring the
previous marriage void is not only for purpose of remarriage.
2) Yes. The prayer for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage may be raised together
with the other incident of their marriage such as the separation of their properties. The
Family Code has clearly provided the effects of the declaration of nullity of marriage,
one of which is the separation of property according to the regime of property relations
governing them.
Hence, SC denied the instant petition. CA's decision is affirmed.

TIPS ON DIGESTING CASES: [i]You can never escape digesting cases in the College of Law. The objective in
digesting cases is to discover how the law was applied. Your professor is less interested in the brilliancy of the
lawyer or the parties involved or how they won or lost their case. What matters is how the Supreme Court resolved
the issues.[i]

1. DO NOT DIGEST UNLESS YOU KNOW THE CODAL PROVISION. It's a total waste of time. On the contrary, if you
know what the law requires, it is easy to determine if the parties obeyed or disobeyed the law. The Court always
sides with the party who obeyed the law.
2. DO NOT DIGEST CASES SINGLY. [i]Groups of cases must be digested together because they all apply the same
law - sometimes in contrasting manner. Spend the most time thoroughly digesting the first in a batch of cases.
Succeeding cases will simply re-apply the same principle. However, look out for reversals of rulings.[i]
3. LOOK AT THE DATES. PRIORITIZE DIGESTING LATER CASES. Chances are, the latest case will contain a
recitation of earlier cases - already digested by the ponente (the justice who actually writes the text of the
decision). Not only that - usually, the ponente will compare and contrast related cases, saving you a lot of time in
case you cannot read the full text of the original decision. But set apart a time to read the original cases anyway.
4. USE BLOCK DIAGRAMS TO REPRESENT THE PARTIES. Reduce the long list of parties into "F filed an action
against C" etc. regardless of how long the full name of F or C is. Make a mental chart of who filed the original case
and then trace it from there - who won in the original jurisdiction, it is always the loser who appeals if the case was
resolved normally. But 80% of cases reaching the Supreme Court are pre-emptive; filed by one of the parties
before a final decision is reached below. But just the same, the party that goes to the Supreme Court is either the
losing party of the party about to lose. Jump to the dispositive portion and see if the petitioning party was
successful or not. Then reconstruct the arguments in between, using the syllabus of the case (the first portion of
every SCRA (text) as aid.
5. AT THE VERY LEAST, DIGEST AT LEAST ONE CASE FROM EVERY SECTION OF THE COURSE OUTLINE. It is not
the number of cases you digested that matters but the coverage. You must digest at least one case for every
pertinent provision of law. Two, if you have the time. Three, if you anticipate a graded recitation.
6. SEEK AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISPLAY WHAT YOU LEARNED. If you are called for a recitation on a case you did
not digest, offer to recite on another cases (most professors will allow that, so long as you offer to recite on the
same subject matter.) The point is, let the professor know that you attempted to understand the principle at work.
If embarrassed, do not sulk. Listen to the person reciting - their digest may be correct and if it is, it will definitely
come out in the exams.
7. DO NOT DEVOUR ALL FACTS. YOU DO NOT NEED THEM. You can try applying the reverse analysis approach.
Look at the ruling and then find out how the Court arrived at the ruling. The Supreme Court throws out may
irrelevant facts because it is not a trier of facts. Do not try to smell out every fact if it did not even concern the
Justices.
8. REMEMBER THE "ANGLE OF CONCERN". If you are digesting for a Constitutional Law subject, ignore the issues
that do not concern you. Read the case with particular interest on how the Constitution was applied. Ditto for other
subjects.
9. KEEP YOUR DIGEST. YOU WILL DEFINITELY ENCOUNTER THE SAME CASES IN YOUR HIGHER YEARS. [i]Most
cases involve various aspects of the law. So the cases you digested in Persons are most likely the same ones you
will read in Wills and Succession. Your "angle of concern" will be different of course, but you will save a lot of time
if you are familiar with the facts already.[i]