DIGESTING CASES

FACTS
 The facts describe the events between the parties leading to the litigation
and tell how the case came before the court that is now deciding it.
Important notes:

• Include only the facts that are relevant to the issue (topic);
• You will not know which facts are relevant until you know what the
issue or issues are;
• State who the are the parties (plaintiff and defendant/ complainant and
accused/ petitioner and respondent);
• State the basis of the plaintiff’s suit and the relief the plaintiff is seeking;
• Include the ruling of the lower court on the case and whether or not the
appellate court affirmed or reverse the decision.
 ISSUE/S
 The issue is the question that the court must decide
to resolve the dispute between the parties in the case
before it.

Important notes:
• Keep your issue/s brief and simple. No dangling
words that will make your issue confusing;
• Usually issue is written as a question that combines
the rule of law with the material facts of the case,
that is, those facts that raise the dispute;
• Focus only on the issue that are important and
relevant to your topic.
 RULING
 The ruling is the court’s decision on the question that
is actually before it.
Important notes:
• Copy the ruling in the decision in toto;
• The ruling should answer the issue;
• Always include the basis of the SC in its decision, it
can be a law (Constitution, Statute, Administrative
issuance/policies, or Ordinance), a case law
(Jurisprudence), or a generally accepted principle of
law (doctrines, customary international law, or
generally accepted principles of international law)
• Include only the that part of the decision that is
relevant to the issue and your topic.
 SANTOS VS. CA
G.R. No. 112019
FACTS:
Leouel, plaintiff, married Julia, defendant, in
1986. In 1988, Julia left for US to work as nurse. She called
up once after seven months and promised to return upon
expiration of her contract but she never did. When Leouel
went to US to underwent training he desperately tried to
locate or keep in touch with Julia but all of his efforts were
of no avail. Leouel filed with RTC a complaint for voiding of
marriage under article 36 of the Family Code. His main
contention is that failure of Julia to return home, or at the
very least to communicate with him, for more than five
years are circumstances that clearly show her being
psychologically incapacitated to enter into married life. RTC
dismiss the petition for lack of merit. On appeal, CA affirm
the decision of RTC. Hence, the fruition of this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the failure of Julia to return home, or at
the very least to communicate with her husband for more
than five years constitute psychological incapacity.
RULING:
No, the Court rules in the negative. Psychological
incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical
antecedence, and (c) incurability.

Psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a

mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly
incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly
must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage
which, as so expressed by Article 68 of the Family Code, include
their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and
fidelity and render help and support. There is hardly any doubt
that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of
"psychological incapacity" to the most serious cases of personality
disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or
inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. This
psychologic condition must exist at the time the marriage is
celebrated.
 The factual settings in the case at bench, in no
measure at all, can come close to the standards
required to decree a nullity of marriage. Undeniably and
understandably, Leouel stands aggrieved, even
desperate, in his present situation. Regrettably, neither
law nor society itself can always provide all the specific
answers to every individual problem.