Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

G.R. No.

28228-R October 15, 1963

Lapitan vs. PCSO

Lucero J.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Facts:

 In the June 2 1958 draw of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes office ticket bearing number
073522 divided into four shares
o First prize Php 100,000.00
 Plaintiff Lapitan, on august 7, 1958, presented to the defendant PCSO a badly mutilated ticket.
 The defendant submitted the ticket to the NBI. To ascertain the Genuity of the ticket.
 The NBI concluded that it is impossible for the ticket to be reconstructed as to ascertain its
number. The only figure found is “3”
 PCSO refused to give the money
 Answering the complainant (a) the plaintiff is not the holder of the number (b) plaintiff has no
valid cause of action against the defendant.
 The plaintiff appealed contending that the “trial court erred in holding that the plaintiff has not
duly established that the mutilated ticket presented to the defendant bears the number”

More facts

 When the plaintiff bought the ticket, in fear of misplacing the ticket, he wrote the number
thereof, on top of page 12 of the printed calendar for the year 1958
 He placed the ticket inside a wooden wardrobe.
 In the morning of June 2nd, he took the ticket and put it inside a pocket of his trousers for the
purpose of having it hadny for verification. He hung his trousers on a nail at night
 The next day (June 3rd) he noticed his trousers missing
 He found is trousers soaked in a basin of water.
 The ticket was still inside but wet and mutilated.
 He gathered the torn pieces and warpped the mwith a sheet of paper.
 On June 4 1958, he found out that his number is the winning number.
 Later that day, Ajon went to him to inquire about his ticket.
 Together with Atty. Juan Baes (his legal counsel) went to the PCSO to claim the prize
 Agent Ajon confirmed the sale of the ticket to Lapitan
 However, branding the plaintiff’s testimony as “not only self serving but also irrational and not
in accord with the ordinary course of human behavior”, the Court concluded that the plaintiff
did not duly established that the number is the winning number
 It was improbable that the plaintiff, who have bought a ticket for the first time, would have
written the number in a calendar. The court find such behavior to be incredible.
 However, the ¾ of the shares have been known as to who they are, and that the plaintiff is the
only one claiming the remaining share of the prize.
 The NBI examined the ticket to be genuine even though it cannot be reconstructed as to
ascertain the number

Ruling:

 The court opines that the circumstances, together with the Testimonial evidence, sufficiently
establish that the mutilated ticket held by the plaintiff represents the remaining share of the
winning ticket.
 And that by the given facts at hand, it can be logically deduced that the winning ticket is that of
Mr. Lapitan
 In the interpretation of laws, it is presumed that the law making body intended right and justice
to prevail.
 Wherefore, the plaintiff is to obtain the 25,000, with costs.