Yu Tek v. Gonzales 29 Phil 384 (1915) 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

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Gonzalez defaults, the contract will be rescinded and he would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.
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 an executory
agreement; a promise of sale and not a sale.
4. Defendant having defaulted in his obligation, the plaintiff is
entitled to recover the P3000.
5. The plaintiff may also claim the liquidated damages of
P1200 considering that the defendant defaulted even when the
contract did not limit him to his growing crop.

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 If Gonzalez does not deliver, the contract will be rescinded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.
3. No delivery was made. Yu Tek filed to recover the P3000
and P1200 but the court only awarded P3000.
4. Gonzalez: Under the contract, the sugar must be raised
exclusively by him in his plantation and he was unable to fulfill
the contract because the dry weather destroyed his growing
cane.

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