Title
Azada y Lara vs. Martinez y Garcia
Case
G.R. No. 4179
Decision Date
Mar 21, 1910
A debt from an illegal gambling game, acknowledged in a public instrument and transferred, was deemed unenforceable under Civil Code Article 1798, affirming gambling debts cannot be legalized.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 242018)

Facts:

Rafael Azada y Lara v. Francisco Martinez y Garcia, G.R. No. 4179, March 21, 1910, the Supreme Court, Torres, J., writing for the Court; Justices Johnson, Carson, and Moreland concurred; Chief Justice Arellano and Justice Mapa dissented.

The plaintiff Rafael Azada y Lara (appellant) sued Francisco Martinez y Garcia and his judicially appointed guardian on July 26, 1906, seeking payment of 7,000 pesos (Mexican currency). The complaint alleged that on April 16, 1903 Martinez had executed a public instrument (Exhibit A) acknowledging that he owed 7,000 pesos to Jose Escalante y Espinosa, and that on the same date Escalante transferred his claim to the plaintiff by instrument (Exhibit B), which was also notified to and acknowledged by Martinez.

The complaint asserted the debt was due and unpaid despite the expiration of the term and informal attempts to collect, and prayed for judgment ordering defendants to pay 7,000 pesos (or its Philippine-currency equivalent), with legal interest and costs. The demurrer was denied. In their answer the defendants generally denied the allegations and specially pleaded that the 7,000 pesos represented sums Escalante had won from Martinez through the gambling game monte, and therefore the claim was "imaginary" and unenforceable.

At trial both parties introduced oral testimony and documentary evidence. On June 19, 1907 the trial court rendered judgment acquitting the defendants and awarded costs against the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed exceptions to the judgment, moved for a new trial (denied), and duly filed...(Subscriber-Only)

Issues:

  • May the plaintiff maintain an action to recover a sum alleged to have been won in a game of chance (monte) under Article 1798 of the Civil Code?
  • Does the execution of a public instrument acknowledging the debt and the subsequent transfer of the claim to a third party validate or cure the alleged illegality so as to per...(Subscriber-Only)

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.