How to Digest a Case http://www.pinoycasedigest.info/2012/10/how-to-digestcase.

html
A case digest or a case brief is a written summary of the case. A case sometimes involves
several issues. Digesting the same would help the student in separating one issue from
another and understanding how the Court resolved the issues in the case. The student
does not need to discuss all the issues decided in the case in his case digest. He only
needs to focus on the relevant issue or the issue related to the subject that he is taking. A
case digest may also serve as a useful study aid for class discussions and exams. A
student who has a case digest does not need to go back to the case in order to remember
what he has read.
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 allegedly belonging 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.
Sample Case
TOLENTINO VS. THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE Case Digest
ARTURO M. TOLENTINO VS. THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE and THE
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
1994 Aug 25
G.R. No. 115455
235 SCRA 630
FACTS: The valued-added tax (VAT) is levied on the sale, barter or exchange of goods
and properties as well as on the sale or exchange of services. It is equivalent to 10% of
the gross selling price or gross value in money of goods or properties sold, bartered or
exchanged or of the gross receipts from the sale or exchange of services. Republic Act
No. 7716 seeks to widen the tax base of the existing VAT system and enhance its
administration by amending the National Internal Revenue Code.
The Chamber of Real Estate and Builders Association (CREBA) contends that the
imposition of VAT on sales and leases by virtue of contracts entered into prior to the
effectivity of the law would violate the constitutional provision of non-impairment of
contracts.
ISSUE: Whether R.A. No. 7716 is unconstitutional on ground that it violates the contract
clause under Art. III, sec 10 of the Bill of Rights.
RULING: No. The Supreme Court the contention of CREBA, that the imposition of the
VAT on the sales and leases of real estate by virtue of contracts entered into prior to the
effectivity of the law would violate the constitutional provision of non-impairment of
contracts, is only slightly less abstract but nonetheless hypothetical. It is enough to say
that the parties to a contract cannot, through the exercise of prophetic discernment, fetter
the exercise of the taxing power of the State. For not only are existing laws read into
contracts in order to fix obligations as between parties, but the reservation of essential
attributes of sovereign power is also read into contracts as a basic postulate of the legal
order. The policy of protecting contracts against impairment presupposes the maintenance
of a government which retains adequate authority to secure the peace and good order of

society. In truth, the Contract Clause has never been thought as a limitation on the
exercise of the State's power of taxation save only where a tax exemption has been
granted for a valid consideration.
Such is not the case of PAL in G.R. No. 115852, and the Court does not understand it to
make this claim. Rather, its position, as discussed above, is that the removal of its tax
exemption cannot be made by a general, but only by a specific, law.
Further, the Supreme Court held the validity of Republic Act No. 7716 in its formal and
substantive aspects as this has been raised in the various cases before it. To sum up, the
Court holds:
(1) That the procedural requirements of the Constitution have been complied with by
Congress in the enactment of the statute;
(2) That judicial inquiry whether the formal requirements for the enactment of statutes beyond those prescribed by the Constitution - have been observed is precluded by the
principle of separation of powers;
(3) That the law does not abridge freedom of speech, expression or the press, nor interfere
with the free exercise of religion, nor deny to any of the parties the right to an education;
and
(4) That, in view of the absence of a factual foundation of record, claims that the law is
regressive, oppressive and confiscatory and that it violates vested rights protected under
the Contract Clause are prematurely raised and do not justify the grant of prospective
relief by writ of prohibition.
WHEREFORE, the petitions are DISMISSED.