GR L 34; (December, 1902) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-34, December 31, 1902
PABLO PALMA, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JUAN CAÑIZARES, defendant-appellant.
FACTS:
Pablo D. Palma filed an ordinary action against Juan Cañizares to recover the sum of 4,500 pesos, plus interest. Palma’s claim was based on a promissory note dated July 21, 1899, for 5,000 pesos, payable in monthly installments of 500 pesos. The note was signed by Francisco Ong as attorney-in-fact for Cañizares in favor of Saturnina Salazar. Salazar subsequently indorsed the note to Palma on October 20, 1899, for the remaining balance of 4,500 pesos, after a payment of 500 pesos had been made on August 20, 1899. Palma initially attempted an executive action, which was unsuccessful.
In his defense, Cañizares admitted the existence of the note but alleged that the underlying obligation arose from a gambling debt. He claimed the 5,000 pesos represented money he lost to Saturnina Salazar in a game of monte on June 22, 1899, and that the note was executed only to record this gambling loss. He argued the obligation was void for having an illicit cause. He also denied having consented to the subrogation or assignment of the credit from Salazar to Palma.
ISSUE:
Whether Pablo Palma, as subrogee of Saturnina Salazar, can legally enforce the payment of the promissory note against Juan Cañizares, considering the defendant’s claim that the debt originated from a gambling loss.
RULING:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant-appellant, Juan Cañizares, and dismissed the action.
The Court found that the evidence sufficiently established the indebtedness of 5,000 pesos indeed arose from a game of monte, a game of chance expressly prohibited by law. Applying Articles 1798 and 1801 of the Civil Code, the Court held that the law does not allow any action for the recovery of money won in a game of chance. Consequently, the obligation, having an illicit cause, was void and unenforceable.
The execution of the promissory note did not constitute a ratification or novation that would validate the original void obligation. Furthermore, the Court found that the plaintiff failed to prove that Cañizares consented to the subrogation by Palma. Since Palma’s action was essentially the same action Salazar could have brought, and that action was not legally maintainable due to the illicit origin of the debt, Palma could not recover.
The action was dismissed without costs.