G.R. No. L-2353
FACTS:
Plaintiff Zoilo Garcia Vasquez filed a complaint to recover a debt of 1,420 pesos (Mexican currency) based on a promissory note executed by defendant P.B. Florence on September 9, 1900. The complaint was filed on May 7, 1904. In his Answer, the defendant admitted the allegations in the complaint regarding the existence and due date of the promissory note. However, in a subsequent paragraph, he alleged as a defense that the money was loaned to him by the plaintiff for the specific purpose of gambling at the plaintiff’s own house. The plaintiff moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the defendant’s admission of the material allegations entitled him to judgment. The trial court granted the motion and rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the principal amount plus computed interest.
ISSUE:
Whether the defendant’s allegation that the loan was intended for gambling constitutes a sufficient defense to defeat the plaintiff’s action for recovery based on the promissory note.
RULING:
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment on the pleadings. The Court held that the defendant’s alleged defense was legally insufficient. Under Article 1798 of the Civil Code, the only gambling-related obligation that cannot be enforced is for the payment of money actually lost in gambling. A loan of money intended for, but not yet lost in, gambling does not fall under this prohibition and remains a valid and actionable debt. Since the defendant admitted the material allegations of the complaint (the existence and due date of the promissory note), and his proffered defense did not negate his liability, the plaintiff was correctly granted judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Section 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure.