Facts:
An action was instituted by the respondent to recover from the petitioner the sum of Php 15,000.00 alleged to have been lost by the petitioner to the respondent in a series of gambling, banking, and percentage games conducted during the two of three months prior to the institutions of the suit. Petitioner moved to quash the complaint. Petitioner contends that the action to recover money lost at gaming is no such action as contemplated by law. The law requires that there should be a cause of action arising upon a contract, express or implied.
Issue:
WoN the statutory obligation to restore money won at gaming is an obligation arising from a contract?
Ruling:
(Article 1158)
Yes, the obligation to restore money won at gaming is an obligation arising from a contract.
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 civil law, be held that such obligations is an innominate quasi-contract.
No comments:
Post a Comment