Ben vs. O’Brien G.R. No.

L-13602 April 6, 1918

FACTS:

On December 12, 1917, PJ. O’Brien filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila to recover the
amount of P15,000 to Leung Ben who alleged that the money have been lost due to the defendant
series of gabling, banking and percentage games, The plaintiff asked for an attachment against the
property of the defendant, on the ground that the latter was about to depart from the Philippines with
intent to defraud his creditors. The attachment was issued for the provision of the law under which this
attachment was iisued requires that there should be a cause of action arising upon the contract, express
or implied. .

ISSUE:

Whether or not the statutory obligation to restore money won at gaming is an obligation arising from
contract, express or implied.

RULING:

Yes. In permitting the recovery money lost at play, In permitting the recovery of money lost at play, Act
No. 1757 has introduced modifications in the application of articles 1798, 180, and 1305 of the Civil
Code. The first two of these articles relate to gambling contracts, while article 1305 treats of the nullity
of contracts proceeding from a vicious or illicit consideration. Taking all these provisions together, it
must be apparent that the obligation to return money lost at play has a decided affinity to contractual
obligations; and we believe that it could, without violence to the doctrines of the civil law, be held that
such obligations is an innominate quasi-contract. It is, however, unnecessary to place the decision on
this ground.

Obligations and Contracts