Scribd
Upload
107 views2 pages

University of The Philippines College of Law: CPE, 1-D

1. The case involved a contract between Gonzales and Yu Tek Co where Gonzales agreed to deliver 600 piculs of sugar within 3 months in exchange for 3,000 php. However, Gonzales did not deliver any sugar. 2. The Supreme Court ruled that there was no perfected sale since the sugar was not physically segregated or specifically identified, making it a mere executory agreement rather than a sale. 3. Yu Tek was entitled to recover the 3,000 php advance payment since Gonzales defaulted on the agreement, but not entitled to the 1,200 php indemnity since there was no perfected sale. The judgment was modified accordingly.

Uploaded by

Maribel Nicole Lopez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
107 views2 pages

University of The Philippines College of Law: CPE, 1-D

1. The case involved a contract between Gonzales and Yu Tek Co where Gonzales agreed to deliver 600 piculs of sugar within 3 months in exchange for 3,000 php. However, Gonzales did not deliver any sugar. 2. The Supreme Court ruled that there was no perfected sale since the sugar was not physically segregated or specifically identified, making it a mere executory agreement rather than a sale. 3. Yu Tek was entitled to recover the 3,000 php advance payment since Gonzales defaulted on the agreement, but not entitled to the 1,200 php indemnity since there was no perfected sale. The judgment was modified accordingly.

Uploaded by

Maribel Nicole Lopez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

University of the Philippines College of Law

CPE, 1-D

Topic Particular kind – Generic Things


Case No. G.R. No. L-9935; February 1, 1915
Case Name YU TEK and CO vs BASILIO GONZALES
Ponente Trent, j.

RELEVANT FACTS

Contract between Gonzales and Yu Tek Co:

1. Gonzales received 3,000 php as consideration for the delivery of 600 piculs of sugar, first
and second grade, within a period of three months at any place within the municipality of
Sta. Rosa which Yu Tek may designate.

2. Non-delivery within 3 months = recission of contract + return of 3,000 php + 1,200 php as
indeminity for loss and damages
No sugar delivered to Yu Tek nor was it able to recover the 3,000 php.

ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue Ratio

(1) Whether there is a 1. No


perfected sale
There is a perfected sale with regard to the “thing” whenever the article of
sale has been physically segregated from all other articles.

In this case, there was no segregation of the object of the contract. 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.
There was no “appropriation” of any particular lot of sugar. Neither
party could point to any specific quantity of sugar and say: ”This is the article
which was the subject of our contract”
The contract in the case at bar was merely an executory agreement; a
promise of sale and not a sale.

As there was no perfected sale, it is clear that article 1262 is not applicable.
Gonzales having defaulted in his engagement, Yu Tek is entitled to recover
the 3,000 php which it advanced to the defendant.

RULING

For the foregoing reasons the judgment appealed from is modified by allowing the recovery of P1,200 under
paragraph 4 of the contract. As thus modified, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, without costs in this
instance.
University of the Philippines College of Law
CPE, 1-D

SEPARATE OPINIONS

None

NOTES

Doctrine:
There is a perfected sale with regard to the “thing” whenever the article of sale has been physically segregated
from all other articles.

Article 1246. When the obligation consists in the delivery of an indeterminate or generic thing,
whose quality and circumstances have not been stated, the creditor cannot demand a thing of
superior quality. Neither can the debtor deliver a thing of inferior quality. The purpose of the
obligation and other circumstances shall be taken into consideration.

Article 1409. The following contracts are inexistent and void from the beginning:
(6) Those where the intention of the parties relative to the principal object of the contract cannot
be ascertained;

You might also like