Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3K views

    Leung Ben vs. P. J. O'Brien, Et Al. (Digest)

    Uploaded by

    G S
    The document discusses the case of Leung Ben vs. P.J. O'Brien regarding an attachment issued in a case where Leung Ben won money from O'Brien in gambling. The Supreme Court ruled that the obligation under Act No. 1757 for the winner of a prohibited game to return money to the loser constitutes an "implied contract." Therefore, the trial court properly issued the attachment against Leung Ben, as the cause of action arose from an implied contract permitting attachments under the Code of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court denied the writ of certiorari and dismissed the case.

    Copyright:

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

    Leung Ben vs. P. J. O'Brien, Et Al. (Digest)

    Uploaded by

    G S
    3K views1 page
    The document discusses the case of Leung Ben vs. P.J. O'Brien regarding an attachment issued in a case where Leung Ben won money from O'Brien in gambling. The Supreme Court ruled that the obligation under Act No. 1757 for the winner of a prohibited game to return money to the loser constitutes an "implied contract." Therefore, the trial court properly issued the attachment against Leung Ben, as the cause of action arose from an implied contract permitting attachments under the Code of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court denied the writ of certiorari and dismissed the case.

    Original Description:

    Obligations and Contracts; Civil Law

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses the case of Leung Ben vs. P.J. O'Brien regarding an attachment issued in a case where Leung Ben won money from O'Brien in gambling. The Supreme Court ruled that the obligation under Act No. 1757 for the winner of a prohibited game to return money to the loser constitutes an "implied contract." Therefore, the trial court properly issued the attachment against Leung Ben, as the cause of action arose from an implied contract permitting attachments under the Code of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court denied the writ of certiorari and dismissed the case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    3K views1 page

    Leung Ben vs. P. J. O'Brien, Et Al. (Digest)

    Uploaded by

    G S
    The document discusses the case of Leung Ben vs. P.J. O'Brien regarding an attachment issued in a case where Leung Ben won money from O'Brien in gambling. The Supreme Court ruled that the obligation under Act No. 1757 for the winner of a prohibited game to return money to the loser constitutes an "implied contract." Therefore, the trial court properly issued the attachment against Leung Ben, as the cause of action arose from an implied contract permitting attachments under the Code of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court denied the writ of certiorari and dismissed the case.

    Copyright:

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

    Actually, there are only two (2) sources: law and contracts, because obligations arising from quasi-

    contracts, crimes, and quasi-delicts are really imposed by law. (see Leung Ben vs. O’Brien, 38 Phil. 182
    [1918].) Where the source of the obligation is a private act, the law merely recognizes or acknowledges
    the existence of the obligation.

    Article 1157. Obligations arise from: Law, Contracts, Quasi-contracts, Delicts, and Quasi-delicts.

    Leung Ben vs. P.J. O’brien, et al., G.R. No. 13602, 6 April 1918, Street [J].

    Facts: This is an application for a writ of certiorari, the purpose of which is to quash an attachment
    issued from the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila.
    Upon December 12, 1917, an action was instituted in the Court of First Instance of the city of
    Manila by P. J. O'Brien to recover of Leung Ben the sum of P15,000, alleged to have been lost by the
    plaintiff to the defendant in a series of gambling, banking, and percentage games conducted during the
    two or three months prior to the institution of the suit. CFI granted the same. Hence, this petition.

    Issue: Whether statutory obligation to restore money won at gaming an obligation arising from an
    implied contract

    Ruling: Yes. The obligation imposed by Act No. 1757 upon the winner in a prohibited game to return to
    the loser the money or other thing of value won at play is an "implied contract," as this term is used in
    subsection (1) of section 412 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
    In an action brought pursuant to the provisions of Act No. 1757 to recover a sum of money lost
    at play, an attachment was obtained in the Court of First Instance under section 424 in connection with
    subsection 1 of section 412 of the Code of Civil Procedure. These provisions authorize the issuance of an
    attachment in an action for the recovery of money on a cause of action arising upon contract, express or
    implied, when the defendant is about to depart from the Philippine Islands. Held: That the cause of
    action arose upon an implied contract and that the action of the court in issuing the attachment would
    not be annulled by the Supreme Court in a proceeding by writ of certiorari.

    Fallo: From what has been said it follows that in our opinion the cause of action stated in the
    complaint in the court below is based on a contract, express or implied, and is therefore of such nature
    that the court had" authority to issue the writ of attachment. The application for the writ of certiorari
    must therefore be denied and the proceedings dismissed. So ordered.

    You might also like