Facts:

The case involves Bunge Corporation and Universal Commercial Agencies as plaintiffs and Elena Camenforte & Company, doing business as Visayan Products Company, as defendants. The events leading to the case began on October 22, 1947, in Cebu City, where a contract was executed between the plaintiffs and the defendants for the sale of 500 long tons of merchantable Philippine copra. The agreed price was $188.80 per ton, with a 1% brokerage fee, and the delivery was to be made to San Francisco, California, during November or December 1947. The plaintiffs alleged that despite repeated demands, the defendants failed to deliver the copra within the stipulated timeframe, leading the plaintiffs to sell the copra to El Dorado Oil Works, believing the defendants would fulfill their contractual obligations. The plaintiffs claimed damages amounting to P180,000 due to the defendants' failure to deliver.

In their defense, the defendants, except for Vicente Kho, denied the existen...

Facts:

1. Contract Formation:

   • On October 22, 1947, a contract was entered into between Bunge Corporation (represented by Universal Commercial Agencies) and Visayan Products Company (represented by Vicente Kho) in Cebu City.
   • The contract stipulated the sale of 500 long tons of Philippine copra at $188.80 per ton, C&F Pacific Coast, U.S.A., with delivery to be made in November or December 1947.

2. Breach of Contract:

   • Visayan Products Company failed to deliver the copra within the agreed period despite repeated demands from Bunge Corporation.
   • Bunge Corporation, believing in good faith that the copra would be delivered, had already sold the same quantity to El Dorado Oil Works at the same price.

3. Defense of Force Majeure:

   • Vicente Kho claimed that the copra was stored in San Ramon, Samar, but was destroyed by a storm, constituting force majeure, which he argued exempted him from liability.

4. Trial Court Decision:

   • The trial court ruled in favor of Bunge Corporation, ordering Visayan Products Company to pay P79,744 in damages, with legal interest from the filing of the complaint.
   • The court held that the copra stored in Samar was not the specific copra contemplated in the contract, as the contract referred to generic copra.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Generic vs. Specific Obligations:

   • The contract referred to generic copra, not a specific lot. Therefore, the destruction of the copra stored in Samar did not relieve the defendants of their obligation to deliver copra from any source.
   • The principle "Genus nunquam perit" (a genus never perishes) applies, meaning that an obligation to deliver a generic thing is not extinguished by the loss of a particular item within that genus.

2. Force Majeure:

   • Force majeure only excuses non-performance if the obligation is specific. Since the obligation here was generic, the defense of force majeure was not valid.

3. Damages:

   • The trial court correctly based the damages on the market price of copra at the time of the breach, as this reflected the loss suffered by the plaintiffs due to the defendants' failure to deliver.