Yu Tek v. Gonzales 29 3. No delivery was made.
Yu Tek filed an executory agreement; a promise of
Phil 384 (1915)
Gonzalez agreed to deliver 600 piculs
of sugar of the first and second classes
to Yu Tek within a specified period. Yu
Tek had already paid for said delivery
and the contract states that if
Gonzalez defaults, the contract will be
rescinded and he would return the
P3000 to Yu Tek with P1200 as
payment for damages. Gonzalez
defaulted
DOCTRINE: There is a perfected sale
with regard to the “thing” whenever
the article of sale has been physically
segregated from all other articles.
1. Yu Tek entered into a contract of
sale with Gonzalez. Yu Tek paid P3000,
in return, Gonzalez obligated himself
to deliver 600 piculs of sugar of the
first and second grade, according to
the result of polarization, within
3months (Jan-March 1912) at any
place within Sta Rosa which Yu Tek or
his representative may designate.
2. If Gonzalez does not deliver, the
contract will be rescinded and the
P3000 will be returned to Yu Tek with
P1200 damages.
to recover the P3000 and P1200 but sale and not a sale.
the court only awarded P3000. 4. Defendant having defaulted in his
4. Gonzalez: Under the contract, the obligation, the plaintiff is entitled to
sugar must be raised exclusively by recover the P3000.
him in his plantation and he was 5. The plaintiff may also claim the
unable to fulfill the contract because liquidated damages of P1200
the dry weather destroyed his considering that the defendant
growing cane. defaulted even when the contract did
not limit him to his growing crop.
WON there was a perfected sale –
NO
MODIFIED. Recovery of P1200
allowed.
1. There is a perfected sale with regard
to the “thing” whenever the article of
sale has been physically segregated
from all other articles.
2. In this case, the obligation of the
defendant was to sell to the plaintiff
600 piculs of sugar of the first and
second classes. Now if called upon to
designate the article sold, it is clear
that the defendant could only say that
it was “sugar”. He could only use this
generic name for the thing sold since
there was no appropriation of any
particular lot of sugar
3. The contract in this case was merely