A. Mr.

ZY lost P100, 000 in a card game called Russian

poker, but he had no more cash to pay in full the winner at
the time the session ended. He promised to pay PX, the
winner, two weeks thereafter. However, he failed to do so despite
the lapse of two months, so PX filed in court a suit to
collect the amount of P50, 000 that he won but remained
unpaid. Will the collection suit against ZY prosper? Could
Mrs. ZY file in turn a suit against PX to recover the
P100, 000 that her husband lost? Reason. (5%)

1. The suit by PX to collect the balance of what he won

from ZY will not prosper. Under Article 2014 of the Civil
Code, no action can maintained by the winner for the
collection of what he has won in a game of chance.
Although poker may depend in part on ability, it is
fundamentally a game of chance.
2.  If the money paid by ZY to PX was conjugal or
community property, the wife of ZY could sue to recover it
because Article 117(7) of the Family Code provides that
losses in gambling or betting are borne exclusively by the
loser-spouse. Hence, conjugal or community funds may not
be used to pay for such losses. If the money were exclusive property of ZY, his wife may
also sue to recover it under
Article 2016 of the Civil Code if she and the family needed
the money for support.

B. Pedro promised to give his grandson a car if the latter will

pass the bar examinations. When his grandson passed the
said examinations, Pedro refused to give the car on the
ground that the condition was a purely potestative one. Is
he correct or not? (2%)

1. No, he is not correct. First of all the condition is not purely

potestative, because it does not depend on the sole will of
one of the parties. Secondly, even if it were, it would be
valid because it depends on the sole will of the creditor (the donee) and not of the debtor (the
donor).