When we buy sweepstakes, we always keep the ticket in a safe place. Other people even put it on a pillow with a blanket draped over it to ensure the ticket is comfortable.

Maybe that is an exaggeration. But really, we ensure it is safe from harm's way. That is because if it becomes a winning ticket, that is our only proof to claim the much-coveted prize. And we all know that the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office requires that the ticket, when presented, must be in pristine condition. The winner may not get the prize if torn, defaced, mangled, or even folded.

What happened to Antonio, indeed, is worth reading and remembering. In October 2014, the PCSO sweepstakes ticket he bought had the lucky number combination, which won him 12 million.

As fate would have it, however, his granddaughter crumpled it. His daughter tried to remove its creases by ironing it under a cloth.

Unfortunately, in doing so, part of the ticket got burned, covering some information, including a portion of the winning number combination.

Thus, when he presented it to PCSO, the latter refused to award him the prize. It argued that the ticket was no longer in a condition in conformity with its requirements to award the prize.

Antonio, unfazed, filed a case with the trial court for specific performance. In its answer, the PCSO argued that Antonio had no cause of action, failing to attach the winning ticket. After hearing both sides, the court ruled in favor of Antonio.

It thus required PCSO to give him the winning prize along with damages, attorney's fees, and the cost of the suit. On appeal, the Court of Appeals did not give PCSO the thumbs up. It sustained the trial court sans, however, the damages and allied fees.

The PCSO, convinced that a winner to be awarded the prize, must present the physical ticket, brought the issue before the Highest Tribunal.

This is how the Supreme Court ruled on the matter. "While the PCSO insists that the presentation of the complete, physical ticket is a condition precedent before their duty to pay the prize money arises, Mendoza and the Committee on Games consider the selection of the winning number combination as the essential condition precedent.

These are two reasonable interpretations of the Rules, causing ambiguity in the terms for payment of prize money. Hence, the interpretation of the PCSO Rules, which form part of the contract, is left to the court."

As such, a review of the nature of the lotto game is in order. It is a game of chance duly authorized under RA 1169, as amended, or "An Act Providing for Charity Sweepstakes Horse Races and Lotteries." xxx It is notable from the above cited PCSO Rules that there is no reference to a 'winning ticket.' At most, a ticket was only defined as 'produced by a terminal confirming the selection made by the customer.'  Stated otherwise, the ticket only proves that the bettor selected the winning combination of numbers.

The CA did not err in finding that it is the act of selecting the winning combination that entitles a bettor to the corresponding prize. Given this, the issue that now needs to be determined is whether Mendoza sufficiently proved that he actually selected the winning combination. xxx

(To be continued)