LEUNG BEN VS O’BRIEN

Leung Ben

Vs

P.J. O’Brien

This is an application for a writ of certiorari, the purpose of which is to quash an

attachment issued from the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila under
circumstances hereinbelow stated.

FACTS

An action was instituted in the court of first Instance of the city of manila by P.J O’Brien
to recover the sum of P15,000 an alleged lost by Leung Ben to P.J O’Brien in a series of
gambling, banking and percentage games conducted prior to the institution of suit. Leung
Ben’s stated in his complaint that O’Brien asked for an attachment against the property
of Leung Ben on the ground that the latter was about to leave the Philippines with his
intent to defraud his creditors. The attachment was issued through the acting authority ,
the sheriff attached the amount of P15,000 and deposited by the O’Brien with the
international Banking Corporation.

The motion to squash the attachment filed by Leung Ben was dismissed by the court.

ISSUE

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

RULLING

Yes, The money lost in gaming and voluntarily paid by the loser to the winner cannot be
recovered in a civil action if in the absence of statute.It will observed that according to the
Civil Code obligations are supposed to be derived either from (1) the law, (2) contracts
and quasi-contracts, (3) illicit acts and omission, or (4) acts in which some sort ob lame
or negligence is present. This enumeration of sources of obligations and the obligation
imposed by law are different types.
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.

From what has been said it follows that in the opinion the cause of action stated in the
complaints in the court below is based on a contract, express or implied and is therefore
of such nature that the court had authority to issue writ of attachment. The application for
the writ of certiorari must therefore be denied and the proceedings dismissed.