G.R. No. L-1724

FACTS:
Plaintiff-appellant Alejandro Reyes filed an action against defendant-appellee Francisco Martinez upon a promissory note for 1,200 pesos. The defendant’s sole defense was that the note was executed to pay a debt arising from money lost in a game called “burro,” which he alleged was a prohibited game of chance under the law. The Court of First Instance of Manila ruled in favor of the defendant, holding that “burro” was a game of chance and that the debt was therefore unenforceable under Article 1798 of the Civil Code.

ISSUE:
Whether the game of “burro” is a game of chance, luck, or hazard such that a debt arising from it (evidenced by a promissory note) is unenforceable under Article 1798 of the Civil Code.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision. The game of “burro” is not a game of chance, luck, or hazard as defined by law. The Court defined a game of chance as one where the result depends exclusively on luck or accident, not on the skill or dexterity of the players. The defendant’s own testimony established that in “burro,” a player is free to play or not, skill influences the outcome, and it involves discarding and exchanging cards. Therefore, the game depends not exclusively on chance but also on the player’s skill. Consequently, a promissory note executed to pay a debt from such a game is valid and enforceable, absent any allegation of fraud, minority, or incapacity. The plaintiff is entitled to recover the 1,200 pesos from the defendant.