Title: Leung Ben v O’Brien Name of Digester: Cel G

G.R. No. L-13602 Date: 6 April 1918 Ponente: Street, J.

Subject / Syllabus Topic: Obligations and Contracts/Kinds of Obligations

Petitioner: Leung Ben Respondent: P.J. O’Brien, James A. Ostrand, and Geo R.
Harvey
Doctrines:
Obligations are supposed to be derived from the following:
1. Law
2. Contracts and quasi-contracts
3. Illicit acts and omissions
4. Acts in which some sort of blame or negligence is present.
Facts:
An action was instituted in the Court of Frist Instance of the City of Manila by PJ O’Brien to recover from Leung Ben P15,000
allegedly lost in a series of gambling, banking, and percentage games conducted during two to three months prior. In Leung Ben’s
verified complaint, O’Brien asked for an attachment against the property of Leung Ben on the ground that the latter was about to
depart the Philippine Islands with intent to defraud his creditors. The attachment was issued and the sheriff attached the sum of
P15,000 which has been deposited by O’Brien.

Leung Ben filed a motion to quash the attachment which was dismissed by the Court.
Issue/s: Ruling:
Whether or not the statutory obligation to restore money won at Yes.
gaming an obligation arising from contract, express or implied

Holding:
Generally, money lost in gaming and voluntarily paid by the loser to the winner cannot in the absence of the statute, be recovered
in a civil action. But Act No. 1757 of the Philippine Commission, which defines and penalizes several forms of gambling containing
numerous provisions recognizing the right to recover money lost in gambling or in playing certain games. The original complaint
filed in the action in the Court of First Instance is not as to the particular section of Act no. 1757, but it is alleged that the money
was lost as gambling, banking, and percentage game in which the defendant was the banker.

Obligations are supposed to be derived from the following:

5. Law
6. Contracts and quasi-contracts
7. Illicit acts and omissions
8. Acts in which some sort of blame or negligence is present.
This enumeration of sources of obligations of obligations and the obligation imposed by law are different types.

In this case, the duty of O’Brien to refund the money which he won from Leung Ben at a gaming was a duty imposable by statue,
making it an obligation arising from law (ex lege). In addition, it was a duty to return a certain sum which had passed from O’Brien
to Leung Ben. This is a duty in the nature of debt and is properly classified as an implied contract.
Separate Opinions

Fisher, J. Dissenting Opinion

The phrase “contract, express or implied” should be interpreted in the grammatical sense of the words and limited to true contracts,
consensual obligations arising form consent, whether expressed in words, writing or signs, or presumed from contract. In this case,
the defendant never promised his obligation to restore the amounts won impose by law and is purely extra-contractual.

The relation in question does not constitute a quasi-contract. The act which gave rise to the obligation by law relied upon by the
plaintiff is illicit, which is an unlawful gambling game.