Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 102 views

    Aleatory Contracts Gambling (2004)

    Uploaded by

    liks5poyongan
    Mr. ZY lost $100,000 in a card game called Russian poker and failed to pay the winner, PX, $50,000 that was owed two months later. PX filed a collection suit against ZY. Mrs. ZY also considered filing a suit to recover the $100,000 her husband lost. The collection suit by PX would not succeed because under Philippine law, no action can be maintained to collect winnings from games of chance. Mrs. ZY could not file suit either, as losses in gambling are borne exclusively by the losing spouse under the Family Code, and she has no legal standing. Pedro promised his grandson a car if he passed the bar exam. When

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Aleatory Contracts Gambling (2004)

    Uploaded by

    liks5poyongan
    102 views1 page
    Mr. ZY lost $100,000 in a card game called Russian poker and failed to pay the winner, PX, $50,000 that was owed two months later. PX filed a collection suit against ZY. Mrs. ZY also considered filing a suit to recover the $100,000 her husband lost. The collection suit by PX would not succeed because under Philippine law, no action can be maintained to collect winnings from games of chance. Mrs. ZY could not file suit either, as losses in gambling are borne exclusively by the losing spouse under the Family Code, and she has no legal standing. Pedro promised his grandson a car if he passed the bar exam. When

    Original Title

    Aleatory Contracts

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Mr. ZY lost $100,000 in a card game called Russian poker and failed to pay the winner, PX, $50,000 that was owed two months later. PX filed a collection suit against ZY. Mrs. ZY also considered filing a suit to recover the $100,000 her husband lost. The collection suit by PX would not succeed because under Philippine law, no action can be maintained to collect winnings from games of chance. Mrs. ZY could not file suit either, as losses in gambling are borne exclusively by the losing spouse under the Family Code, and she has no legal standing. Pedro promised his grandson a car if he passed the bar exam. When

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    102 views1 page

    Aleatory Contracts Gambling (2004)

    Uploaded by

    liks5poyongan
    Mr. ZY lost $100,000 in a card game called Russian poker and failed to pay the winner, PX, $50,000 that was owed two months later. PX filed a collection suit against ZY. Mrs. ZY also considered filing a suit to recover the $100,000 her husband lost. The collection suit by PX would not succeed because under Philippine law, no action can be maintained to collect winnings from games of chance. Mrs. ZY could not file suit either, as losses in gambling are borne exclusively by the losing spouse under the Family Code, and she has no legal standing. Pedro promised his grandson a car if he passed the bar exam. When

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Aleatory Contracts; Gambling (2004)

    A.   Mr. ZY lost P100,000 in a card game called Russian poker, but he had no more cash to pay


    in full the winner at the time the session ended.   He promised to pay PX, the winner, two weeks
    thereafter.  But he failed to do so despite the lapse of two months, so PX filed in court a suit to
    collect the amount of P50,000 that he won but remained unpaid.  Will the collection suit against
    ZY prosper?  Could Mrs.  ZY  file  in  turn  a  suit  against  PX  to  recover  the P100,000 that her
    husband lost?  Reason.

    SUGGESTED ANSWER:

    A. 1) The suit by PX to collect the balance of what he won from ZY will not prosper. Under
    Article 2014 of the Civil Code, no action can be maintained by the winner for the collection  of 
    what  he  has  won  in  a  game  of  chance. Although poker may depend in part on ability, it is
    fundamentally a game of chance.

    2) If the money paid by ZY to PX was conjugal or community property, the wife of ZY could sue
    to recover it because Article 117(7) of the Family Code provides that losses in gambling
    or betting are borne exclusively by the loser-spouse. Hence, conjugal or community funds may
    not be used to pay for such losses. If the money were exclusive property of ZY, his wife may also
    sue to recover it under Article 2016 of the Civil Code if she and the family needed the money for
    support.

    ALTERNATIVE ANSWER (2):

    A. (2). Mrs. ZY cannot file a suit to recover what her husband lost. Art 2014 of the Civil Code
    provides that any loser in a game of chance may recover his loss from the winner, with legal
    interest from the time he paid the amount lost. This means that only he can file the suit. Mrs. ZY
    cannot recover as a spouse who has interest in the absolute community property or conjugal
    partnership of gains, because under Art. 117(7} of the Family Code, losses are borne exclusively
    by the loser-spouse. Therefore, these cannot be charged against absolute community property or
    conjugal partnership of gains. This being so, Mrs. ZY has no interest in law to prosecute and
    recover as she has no legal standing in court to do so.

    Conditional Obligations (2000)

    Pedro promised to give his grandson a car if the latter will pass the bar examinations. When his
    grandson passed the said examinations, Pedro refused to give the car on the ground that the
    condition was a purely potestative one. Is he correct or not?

    SUGGESTED ANSWER:

    No, he is not correct. First of all, the condition is not purely potestative, because it does not
    depend on the sole will of one of the parties. Secondly, even if it were, it would be valid because
    it depends on the sole will of the creditor (the donee) and not of the debtor (the donor).

    You might also like