Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

YU TEK CO VS.

GONZALES FACTS: Yu Tek a n d G o n z a l e z e n t e r e d i n t o a c o n t r a c t o f s a l e i n w h i c h t h e f o r m e r w o u l d p a y t h e l a t t e r P3,000 and would in turn be bound to deliver 600 piculs of sugar (of the first and second grade)within a period of three months. Failing to do so within the specified time would result in therecission of the contract, the refund of the P3,000, as well as a penalty of P1,200 which Gonzalezwould have to pay. Yu Tek proved before the court that three months had passed with no deliveryof sugar. Gonzalez contended that a stipulation was verbally agreed upon, saying that the sugarwas to come from the crops which he raised from his plantation. Gonzalez further contended thatthe crop failed miserably, and thus the delivery could not be possibly effected. The SC struck thisdown by saying that parol evidence which adds totally new stipulations which are not at all alludedto in the written contract cannot be entertained by the courts. ISSUE: Given that the sugar subject of the contract could not be particularly designated or physically segregated, is there still a perfected contract of sale? HELD: Yes there is, under the New Civil Code. Such contract is perfected upon the meeting of the minds between the parties as regards the subject matter of the contract, which should determinate or at least determinable. In the present case, the sugar can be considered a generic thing. Following t h e principle of genus never perishes, Gonzalez cannot now c l a i m t o b e r e l e a s e d f r o m h i s obligation of delivery since it is, under the contract, impossible to lose. Generic things can alwaysbe replaced in fulfilling an obligation. He could have done so and effected a valid delivery of 600piculs of sugar, but failed to do so within the three months agreed upon. Therefore, he is liable forthe refund of the purchase price as well as the P1,200 penalty.