Case Digest (G.R. No. 9935) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Yu Tek & Co. vs. Basilio Gonzalez, decided on February 1, 1915, the plaintiff‐appellant, Yu Tek & Co., entered into a written agreement with Basilio Gonzalez, the defendant‐appellant, whereby Gonzalez acknowledged receipt of P3,000 and obligated himself to deliver 600 piculs of first and second grade sugar between January 1 and March 31, 1912, at any place in the municipality of Santa Rosa as designated by Yu Tek & Co. A rescission clause provided that, upon failure to deliver within the prescribed period, Gonzalez would return the P3,000 and pay an additional P1,200 as indemnity for loss and damages. Yu Tek & Co. proved in the trial court that no sugar was delivered and that the P3,000 remained unpaid. The trial court awarded the full P3,000 but denied recovery of the P1,200. Both parties appealed this judgment.Issues:
The Supreme Court considered whether:- Parol evidence may be admitted to show the parties intended delivery to b
Case Digest (G.R. No. 9935) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Contractual Agreement
- Basilio Gonzalez acknowledged receipt of ₱3,000 from Yu Tek & Co. and obligated himself to deliver 600 piculs of first- and second-grade sugar, as determined by polarization, between January 1 and March 31, 1912.
- Delivery was to be made at any place within the municipality of Santa Rosa designated by Yu Tek & Co. or its representative.
- Clause for non-performance: if Gonzalez failed to deliver within the time agreed, the contract would be rescinded and he would return ₱3,000 plus ₱1,200 as indemnity for loss and damages.
- Performance and Trial Outcome
- No sugar was delivered, nor was the ₱3,000 returned to the plaintiff.
- Trial court awarded Yu Tek & Co. ₱3,000 but denied the claim for ₱1,200. Both parties appealed.
Issues:
- Defendant’s Contentions
- Whether parol evidence is admissible to show an unexpressed condition that the sugar must come from Gonzalez’s own crop, excusing performance when his crop failed.
- Whether the contract constituted a perfected sale such that loss of the thing due (crop failure) would relieve the seller under Civil Code Arts. 1450, 1452, 1096, and 1182.
- Plaintiff’s Contention
- Whether Yu Tek & Co. is entitled to enforce the ₱1,200 clause as liquidated damages under paragraph 3 of the contract.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)