Case Digest (G.R. No. 1794)
Facts:
- Plaintiff-appellant: Faustino Lichauco
- Defendant-appellee: Francisco Martinez
- Events: Occurred in August 1902 in Manila, at Maria Elson's house in Ermita and Dr. Bustamante's house.
- Losses: Martinez lost 22,000 pesos playing the prohibited game of monte and the non-prohibited game of burro.
- Promissory Note: Martinez issued a promissory note for 22,000 pesos to Mateo Alba, one of the players.
- Notarial Document: On August 6, 1902, Martinez executed a notarial document acknowledging a debt of 22,000 pesos to Alba, claimed to be a loan, replacing the original promissory note.
- Further Losses: On August 12, 1902, Martinez lost another 16,000 pesos playing the same games and issued another promissory note to Alba.
- Partial Payments: Martinez made partial payments totaling 6,000 pesos on these debts.
- Assignment: On June 12, 1903, Alba assigned his interest in the debts to Lichauco.
- Lawsuit: Lichauco filed a lawsuit on June 17, 1903, to recover the remaining amount.
- Lower Court Ruling: The lower court ruled in favor of Martinez, leading Lichauco to appeal.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- Prohibited Game: No, money lost at a prohibited game cannot be recovered even if the loser issues a promissory note for the amount lost.
- Assignee Rights: No, an assignee of such a note who took it after it became due has no more rights than the assignor.
- Burden of Proof: Yes, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show a legal consideration when the stated consideration in a contract is illegal.
- Non-Prohibited Game: No, recovery cannot be made for money lost at a non-prohibited...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- Legal Principles and Precedents: The court's decision was based on established legal principles and precedents.
- Prohibited Game: Money lost at a prohibited game, such as monte, cannot be recovered, even if a promissory note is issued for the amount lost.
- Previous Cases: This principle was upheld in previous cases like Palma vs. Caizares and Escalante vs. Francisco.
- Assignee Rights: An assignee of such a note has no more rights than the assignor, especially when the note is acquired after it becomes due.
- Article 1276 of the Civil Code: Places the burden of proof on the plaintiff to show a legal consideration when the stated consideration is illegal.
- Illegal Consideration: The consideration for the promissory notes was the money lost in gambling, which is an illegal consideration.
- Insufficient Evidence: The evidence was insufficient to determine...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. 1794)
Facts:
In the case of "Lichauco v. Martinez," the plaintiff-appellant, Faustino Lichauco, sought to recover money from the defendant-appellee, Francisco Martinez. The events transpired in August 1902 in Manila, specifically in the house of Maria Elson in Ermita and later in the house of Dr. Bustamante. Martinez lost a total of 22,000 pesos playing the prohibited game of monte and the non-prohibited game of burro. At the end of the game, Martinez issued a promissory note for 22,000 pesos to Mateo Alba, one of the players. On August 6, 1902, Martinez executed a notarial document acknowledging a debt of 22,000 pesos to Alba, which was claimed to be a loan. This document replaced the original promissory note. On August 12, 1902, Martinez lost another 16,000 pesos playing the same games and issued another promissory note to Alba. Martinez made partial payments totaling 6,000 pesos on these debts. On June 12, 1903, Alba assigned his interest in the debts to Lichauco, who then filed a lawsuit on June 17, 1903, to recover the remaining amount. The lower court ruled in favor of Martinez, leading Lichauco to appeal the decision.
Issue:
- Can money lost at a prohibited game be recovered if the loser issues a promissory note for the amount lost?
- Does an assignee of such a note have more rights than the assignor?
- Is the burden of proof on the plaintiff to show a legal consideration when the stated consideration in a contract is illegal?
- Can recovery be m...