G.R. No. L‑1794
November 6 1906

FACTS
1. Defendant Francisco Martinez lost ₱22,000 in a game of monte and burro at the house of María Elson (Manila) in August 1902. He executed a notarized deed acknowledging a simple loan of that amount to Mateo Alba, the winner, and destroyed the original promissory note.
2. On 12 August 1902 he lost an additional ₱16,000 in the same manner and issued a handwritten pagaré to Alba for that sum, also without interest.
3. Alba later assigned both documents and his interest therein to plaintiff Faustino Lichauco, claiming payment of ₱6,000 had been made.
4. Lichauco sued Martinez for the balance with interest. The trial court ruled for Martinez, holding that sums lost in prohibited games are unrecoverable.
5. The plaintiff appealed, arguing: (a) the burro game is not prohibited; (b) the consideration was a lawful loan, not a gambling loss; and (c) the doctrine on gambling debts does not bar recovery when the instrument was transferred after maturity.

ISSUE
Whether a creditor may recover money evidenced by a deed and a pagaré when the underlying consideration consists of losses incurred in a prohibited game (monte) and a game (burro) that may not be prohibited, given the statutory rule that contracts founded on an unlawful consideration are void (Art. 1276, Civil Code).

RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment for Martinez.

– Prohibited gambling rule: Money lost in monte (a game of chance) is unrecoverable; the same rule applies regardless of the execution of a promissory note.
– Burro not proven lawful: The plaintiff failed to prove the amount lost at burro (a game not yet definitively classified as non‑prohibited). Witness testimony was vague and insufficient to separate the ₱16,000 loss into lawful and unlawful portions. Without a clear determination, the entire loss remains tainted by illicit consideration.
– Art. 1276 application: The consideration stated in both documentslosses from gamblingis false and illegal; consequently, the contracts are void. The plaintiff’s claim that the documents represent a genuine loan is unsupported; Martinez himself conceded the funds were lost at gambling, not borrowed.
– No precedent for recovery: Prior Philippine cases (e.g., Palma v. Cañizares, Escalante v. Francisco, De la Rama v. Lacson) consistently hold that gambling debts are unrecoverable, even when the instrument is transferred. The cited U.S. decisions pertain only to negotiable instruments transferred before maturity, which is not the situation here.

Thus, the Court dismissed the appeal and ordered the judgment in favor of the defendant to stand.