CD: Yu Tek v. Gonzales

September 30, 2010 at 2:58 pm (1915, Case Digests) (, , )

YU TEK v. GONZALES
G.R. No. L-9935 February 1, 1915
Trent, J.

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

Facts:
Gonzalez received P3,000 from Yu Tek and Co. and in exchange, the former obligated himself to deliver 600 piculs of sugar of the first and second grade, according to the result of the polarization, within the period of three months. It was also stipulated that in case Gonzales fails to deliver, the contract will be rescinded he will be obligated to return the P3,000 received and also the sum of P1,200 by way of indemnity for loss and damages.

Plaintiff proved that no sugar had been delivered to him under the contract nor had he been able to recover the P3,000.

Gonzales assumed that the contract was limited to the sugar he might raise upon his own plantation; that the contract represented a perfected sale; and that by failure of his crop he was relieved from complying with his undertaking by loss of the thing due.

Issue:
Whether or not there was a perfected contract of sale

Held:
No. This court has consistently held that there is a perfected sale with regard to the “thing” whenever the article of sale has been physically segregated from all other articles.

In the case at bar, the undertaking of the defendant was to sell to the plaintiff 600 piculs of sugar of the first and second classes. Was this an agreement upon the “thing” which was the object of the contract? For the purpose of sale its bulk is weighed, the customary unit of weight being denominated a “picul.” Now, 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.”

We conclude that the contract in the case at bar was merely an executory agreement; a promise of sale and not a sale. There was no perfected sale.

Permalink Leave a Comment

CD: U.S. v. Filart and Singson

August 31, 2010 at 4:38 pm (1915, Case Digests) (, )

U.S. v. JAIME FILART AND HILARIO SINGSON
G.R. No. L-10263 March 13, 1915
Moreland, J.

Doctrine:
A lottery is defined as a scheme for the distribution of prizes by chance among persons who have paid, or agreed to pay, a valuable consideration for the chance to obtain a prize. Its elements are: (1) a consideration; (2) chance: (3) a prize, or some advantage or inequality in amount or value which is in the nature of prize.

Facts:
Filart and Singson took part in a lottery or raffle of an automobile, which was the property of Filart.

The winner was determined in the following manner: The numbers composing the 450, each written on a separate piece of paper, were placed together in a box and thoroughly mixed. A boy was selected who placed his hand in the box and drew out a number. This he delivered to a person who unfolded the paper and read the number in a loud voice while Filart, with a list of the 450 numbers referred to, struck from the list the number corresponding to that drawn from the box. This was repeated until all of the numbers were drawn from the box and stricken from the list. It was agreed that the last number drawn from the box should be the winning number and that the owner of that number should win the automobile.

Both defendants were charged for violating the following provisions of the law:

Section 7 of Act No. 1757 provides, as follows:
The playing at and the conducting of any game of monte, jueteng, or any form of lottery or policy . . . is hereby prohibited, and any person taking any part therein . . . shall be punished as provided in section 3 hereof. . . . .

This section also provides that:

It shall be no defense to any criminal action under this section that the defendant acted as the agent of another or that he had no interest in the result.

Issue:
Whether or not the defendants conducted lottery

Held:
Yes. The facts of record place this case within the definition generally given of a lottery.

A lottery is said to be “a species of gaming, which may be defined as a scheme for the distribution of prizes by chance among persons who have paid, or agreed to pay, a valuable consideration for the chance to obtain a prize.” It was held in the case of Equitable Loan Co. vs. Waring, 117 Ga., 599, that three elements enter into a lottery scheme: (1) A consideration; (2) chance: (3) a prize, or some advantage or inequality in amount or value which is in the nature of prize.

Permalink Leave a Comment

%d bloggers like this: