Both plaintiff  Claro Rivera and defendant Amadeo Matute are  appealing from  a decision of the  Court  of First Instance  of Manila presided over by Judge Fidel Ibañez,. sentencing the defendant to pay  to  the plaintiff  the sum of  P54,271.30 as  damages  for  breach  of  contract  for sate of copra, with legal interest at 6 per cent per  annum from  the  date  of  the  decision,  with costs.   Because  of the amount of  the award,  the appeal was  taken directly to  us.

The trial court rendered a well-prepared and exhaustive decision with factual  details and we  are  reproducing the entire decision with approval, but making some observations on some slight errors or inaccurracies into which the trial court  had apparently  unwittingly fallen.

"This  is an  action  instituted by Claro Rivera  against  Amadeo Matute for the  recovery of damages  in the sum of P221,000 according to  the   amended  complaint,  resulting from  the  failure  of the latter  to comply  with his  contractual  obligations to sell to  the former  1,300 tons of  copra and for the refund by  the defendant to the  plaintiff of  the sum  of P30,000, which the  said  plaintiff advanced to the said defendant as  part  of  the purchase price and of tho  amount  of P10,000  which the plaintiff paid for  10,000 empty sacks he delivered to the  defendant for the sacking of the copra.

"The  defendant answered the plaintiff's complaint,  as amended, denying  the allegations contained therein  with  respect to the  claim for damages and  the reimbursement to  P10.000 for  empty sacks. The defendant admits having received from the plaintiff the sum of P30,000  but,  as a counterclaim, ho alleges  that the  plaintiff  took delivery  of 420,678 tons of  copra  at the  price of  P172.50 per ton, or  a total of P72..566.96,  and  that  the  plaintiff only  paid to  the defendant the amount of  P38,000,  including the  initial payment  of P30,000, mentioned in plaintiff's complaint, leaving an unpaid balance of P34,566.96, which the defendant seeks  to recover from the plaintiff.

"The  plaintiff, in his answer  to defendant's  counterclaim, alleges that he was able to haul a net total of 287,362  kilos (287.352 tons), after  deducting  tho  allowance  of  12½ per cent,  as provided for in the contract at P172.50  per ton,  or  a  total  of P49,568.22, and not P72,566.96, as alleged in  defendant's  counterclaim,  and that the  defendant received,  aside from tho P30,000,000, an additional sum of  P8,498.10 as  proceeds of part of the copra sold to Yek  Hua Trading.

"The negotiations between tho .plaintiff and the defendant  for the sale by  the latter of his copra to the former commenced on  August 10,  1946, which resulted  in the execution by the parties  of an option given, by the  defendant to the plaintiff for the  sale of from 800 to  1,000 tons of copra at P18.50 per 100 kilos  under the terms and  conditions  specified therein.  This document,  marked Exhibit A, signed hy Claro, Rivera and Amadeo Matute, executed in August, 1946, reads as follows:

'Que yo, Amadeo Matute, mayor do edad, soltero y  residente en la Ciudad de Manila, por la presente doy opcion al Sr. Claro Rivera, mayor do  edad,  easado y  residente en  el  Municipio  de  Malabon, Rizal,  para comprar de ochocientos  (800) a  mil  (1,000)  toneladas de coprax resecado cosechado  parte antes  de la  Guerra  y parte dura«te a la ocupacion de Japones  de  diecioclio pesos con  cincuenta centavos  (P18.50)  por eada cien  (100)  kilos, bajo las condiciones siguientes:

'1. Que esta  opcion  durara hasta el  .31 de agosto dentrd. de cuyo periodo me infonnara el Sr. Claro Rivera  el dia en-jjue debo de comenzar la entrega del coprax aqni eontratado  o  cualift&era parte del mismo;

'2. Quo la entrega sera abordo del barco que indicara el Sr. Rivera, debiendo hacerse la entrega por medio de la Luzon Stevedoring;  si esta conforms  en cargar, y  no  estando conforme este eontrato sera nulo;

'3. Que el pago del coprax eontratado sera en la Ciudad do Manila inmodiatamente despues de la presentacion de la f actura  de embarque, debiendo el banco donde esta depositado el dinero  que cubrc  el precio del coprax entregado,  garantizar el pag'o de  dicho coprax;

"4, Que los  sacos que se han dc usar  perteneceran  al dueilo  del coprax;

'5. Que este  contrato tendra efecto,  solamentc  despues  de  la aceptacion por  la Luzon Stevedoring que embarcara el coprax contratado desde  mis  bodegas de La Union,  Sigaboy, Monserat,  Magu, Tiblawan y Calauhan en la provincia  de Davao  al barco donde  se embarcara dicho coprax;

'Yo, Claro Rivera, informado  de las condiciones  do este  contrato acepto cl  mismo  bajo  los terminos  aqui consignados.

'En  testimonio de toda lo cual, firmamos la  presente en la Ciudad de Manila, Republica de Filipinas, hoy  30, de agosto 1946.'

"After  the plaintiff had inspected defendant's  copra, the parties, on August  30, 1946,  entered  into a  contract of  sale Exhibit B, which  reads as follows:

'That I, Amadeo Matute, of  legal age and resident of  the City of Manila,  Philippines, have  sold,  conveyed and  transferred  and by these presents do .hereby sell, convey and  transfer unto Mr. Claro Rivera, of legal age,  and resident of Malabon,  Rizal," Philippines, one  thousand three hundred tons  (1,300)  (1,000  kilos a  ton)  of copra  resicada  now  available   in  the sitios Monserrat,   Magdug, Tigalawan and  Pundaguitan  in the province of Davao under ,the following; conditions:

'1. That the selling price per ton (1,000 kilos)  of copra herein sold is one hundred seventy two pesos  and fifty centavos (P172.50) including sacking,  weighing and  packing {camada)  in  the bodega "where  the copra is deposited.  Putting into the landing barges and hauling to the ships will be for the  expenses of Mr. Claro Rivera.

'2, The weighing of copra herein sold will be made  before hauling to the  ship or any time that Mr. Rivera decided to do so.  From the total weight of the copra twelve and one-half per cent (12%%) "will he deducted for shrinkage,  except the one hundred tons  (100)  that are deposited  under my house, in La Union.

'3. That I shall receive thirty thousand  pesos (P30,000)  as advance payment  from the  time  Mr.  Rivera  will  commence delivering  or hauling' the copra  to the  ship and the  balance to  be  paid  upon presentation of the bill of  lading of the copra loaded to the ship, and the  Bank where the money is deposited will  certify  to me that a sufficient cash is  deposited for payment of the  copra here sold;

'4. That Mr. Rivera, his heir or assign, has full right,  supervision and control as to the method  of sacking and hauling of copra to the ship;

'5. That I will furnish all the sacks and other  necessary materials to be used in  sacking the copra;

'6. That.the time of loading, is one hundred and twenty days  (120) from the date of the execution of this  contract,

'I, Claro Rivera, do hereby accept the  sale of  1,300 tons of copra herein sold to me under the conditions  set forth  in this document.

"In  witness whereof, the parties have hereunto set  their hands in the City of Manila, Philippines, this  SOth day of August 1946.

        (Sgd.)   AMADEO MATUTE

(Sgd.)  CLARO RIVERA

In  the presence of:

(Sgd.)    (Illegible)

        (Sgd.)   B. BASCOMPTE

REPUBLIC OF  THE PHILIPPINES

S.S.

CITY OF  MANILA

'Before me, on this 30th  day of August, 1946;  personally  appeared Amadeo Matute with Residence Certificate  No. A-22520S2 issued at Manila on  4 March 1946 and Claro Rivera  with Residence Certificate No. A-707233  issued  at Manila  on   January 31, 1946, known to me and to me known to be the- same persons who executed the foregoing  document,  and  they  acknowledged to me  that" the same  is an act of their own free and voluntary will and deed.,

(Sgd.) CAMILO FORMOSO

             Notary Public

       Until December 31,  1946

[DRY  SEAL]
Doc.  No. 431
Page  No. 12
Book  No. I .
Series of 1946.'

"The defendant presented as Exhibit  1 the following document;

SUPPLEMENT "A"

In addition to the contract that we have  entered into it is hereby agreed and stipulated that the coprax referred to, includes all the coprax that were made during and before the Japanese occupation,  and the coprax in this  contract is placed  at  between eight hundred to  one thousand  three hundred tons  (800 to  1,300 tons)

(Sgd.) AMADEO MATUTE

(Sgd.)  CLARO RIVERA
'P.  S.  (in  handwriting)

'The  coprax  above  mentioned  is  the  same that  I  saw  in  the bodega.

                   C. R.

"The  first controversy between  the plaintiff and the defendant is "with  respect  to  the  above   last-qoted  document, Supplement A (Exhibit 1). While the defendant  claims that the  said document (Exhibit 1) is  a  supplement to the contract of sale Exhibit  B, the plaintiff contends that  it is a supplement to the option Exhibit A. "It  is not disputed that when the  option Exhibit A was executed the plaintiff had not yet inspected defendant's copra  in the latter's haciendas in the Province of  Dayao, and that when the contract of sale Exhibit B was executed.on August  SO,  1946, it  was after the plaintiff had inspected  defendant's  copra in his haciendas.   Supplement A  (Exhibit 1)  bears  the following post-script; "The coprax above mentioned  is the  same that  I saw  in the bodega".  It is evident  that when Supplement "A" was  executed, . it  was after the plaintiff had 'inspected defendant's copra in  his  haciendas  in  the Province of Davao.  It may be concluded, therefore, that said document was intended as a supplement to the contract of  sale Exhibit B, and not to the option Exhibit A.  Hence, the  contract of sale between  the parties is  Exhibit Bf supplemented by Supplement 'A' (Exhibit 1).   However, "when there is ambiguity in any  of the terms and  conditions of the contract of  sale or doubt as to its interpretation,  the Court  may  resort to  previous  dealings  or  preliminary transactions  between the  parties regarding  the  subject-matter  of said  contract of  sale,  such  as the conditions  and terms  of  the option Exhibit A,,as an aid to interpretation with  a  view to ascertaining  the true  intention,  and  agreement of  the contracting parties. "Premised  upon  the  assumption  that  the contract  of  sale Exhibit  B was  supplemented  by the agreement Exhibit 1, the copra sold  by the defendant to the plaintiff consisted  of the  copra made during and before the  Japanese  occupation,  estimated  to  be from 800 to 1,300 tons then in stock and  deposited in defendant's haciendas  at ha Union,  Sigaboy, Monserrat,  Mag-dug,  Tigalawan and Pundaguitan in the Province of  Davao  with a  deduction  of  12M: per cent from the total weight for shrinkage, except the  100 tons of new  copra  deposited  under defendant's in La Union.  At  the time  the contract  of  sale  was entered  into  between  the  plaintiff and  the  defendant, the latter's copra in  stock and  deposited in his aforementioned haciendas in  the  Province  of Davao  was estimated by Ms "encargados" and employees  in  said  haciendas  to  be from 1,380 tons.  (See testimonies of  Antonio  Perez, trial of August 6, 1948,  page 34-1, t.s.n., Vicente  Alonso, September 3, 1948, page 396,  t.s.n., Nicolas  Gloushenko,  November 19, 1948, page 476, t.g.n., Valeriano Medel, July 27, 1949, page 447, t.s.n., and Celestino Alonso, August 31, 1949,  page 20,  t.s.n.).

"From  the  foregoing  testimonies  of defendant's witnesses, it is clear that the defendant sold to  the plaintiff  1,300  tons  of copra according to the contract of sale Exhibit B, as supplemented by the agreement Exhibit 1,  because  the  said  defendant had more than 1,300 tons of copra in stock in his haciendas named  in  the  deed at the time, of the sale  on August 30, 1946, and the evidence shows, without  any  indication  to  the contrary,  that the  parties had  in mind said copra  in stock as the subject matter  of  the sale.

"A more direct  and  evident proof  that the  defendant  sold  trt the plaintiff  1,300 tons  of  copra, is the receipt  in Spanish, dated November  11,  1940,  signed  and  delivered by the  former  to  the latter, marked Exhibit E-2,  which  reads  as  follows:

"Recibi  de  Don  Claro Rivera,  por  conducto  de su  scnora, Dona  Kizalina Santos,  la  suma  de  siete mil  pesos  (P7,000) como pago adicional de  los 1,300 tonelaclas  de coprax vendldo poi' mi a el por eontrato por escrito entre el y yo.

'Manila,  Noviembro  11, 1946.

        (Fdo.)   A MATUTE
           AMADEO MATUTE

"Sample  of  tho said copra was  analyzed and, in accordance with tlie certification of Dr. George  Lucas  Adamson  of the Adamson University Testing Laboratories, the Southern Cotton Oil Co., New Orleans, La.,  gave  the following  results:  Moisture 5.66  per  cent; Oil 6252 per'cent;  Free Patty Acids (Oleie) S.S6 per  cent (Exhibit A-1.

"According  to the contract of sale executed on August 30,  1946, the vendor Amadeo Matute  would furnish all the sacks and  oilier necessary materials to be  used in  sacking the copra.

"There is conflict-in the evidence as  to  the quantity and sizes of tho empty  sacks in the various haciendas  of the defendant Amadeo Matute at tho time the  aforementioned contract  of  sale was  entered  into  between  him and the  plaintiff  Claro Rivera.  While  the plaintiff contends and  presented evidence  in support of his contention that the delay  in sacking the copra sold to him by the defendant was due to the insufficiency of empty sacks, the defendant claims and presented oral evidence that ho had empty sacks  in  his haciendas enough to  contain the  1,300  tons of copra sold by him  to the plaintiff, and that  the delay in sacking the copra was  due to plaintiff's fault.

After the defendant  Amadeo Matute  had extended to  the plaintiff Claro  Rivera an option to buy the  former's copra in  his haciendas (Exhibit A), the said defendant wrote to the plaintiff a letter  dated August 16, 1946 (Exhibit A~4),  which reads as  follows:

'Apreciable,  amigo, La g'emana  pasada  me dijo Ud.  que deseaba salir  para  Davao,  en  aeroplano  para  el lunes  o martes  de esta semana, para  yer  la  copra en mis haciendas y  me  extrana,  que hasta  la tfecha' no haya pasado Ud. a rccoger las  cartas de presentation  para  los  encargados, de  mis plantaciones,  debe  Ud.  tcner presente que si le  conviene commandar los sacos vacios, y embasar la  copra,  rogandole sirvase decirme cuando espera realgar  dicho. viaje.'

"On  October SO, 1946,  tho  defendant  Amadeo  Matute wrote a letter  to his  encargados  in  Davao and  Monserrat (Exhibit  F-2), the pertinent  portion  of which reads  as  follows:

'Claro Eivero, me dico saldra en aeroplano para esa mañana para ir activando la preparacion de la copra, Sacos vacios, por el vapor de la casa  Everett, que  saldra cl sabado  mandard otrps  12,000 sacos proeura  tener apalabrada la laneha de Rocamora, u otra para cargar ios saeos y evitar gastos de ti-ansportacion, del pantalan a la bodega y de la bodega  al pantalan, * * *'.

"In  spite of defendant's promise to send 12,000 empty sacks to his haciendas, lie only sent first 4,000 small sacks  that would contain approximately  120 tons of copra,  and later  on  6,000 empty .sacks  that would probably  contain  180 tons of copra.  Inasmuch aa the said 10,000 sacks  together  with  the empty sacks already in defendant's haciendas  were not sufficient- for  sacking  the  1,300 tons of copra which the defendant  sold to  the plaintiff,  the  latter,  on ''November 20, 1946, bought 10,000  empty sacks worth P10,000  (Exhibit H) which he sent  to Antonio Perez,  defendant's  encargado in Davao,  on November  22, 1946, in 400 bundles  (Exhibit H-l). ' The plaintiff paid to the De la Rama Steamship Co., Inc., the corresponding freight charges for said sacks in  the amount of P227.50 '(Exhibit H-2).   The defendant was advised by  the plaintiff of the fact that the  latter  had sent  10,000  empty sacks  to Davao  on November 22, 1946 (Exhibit H-l).

"After a thorough study of this case, the Court has arrived at the  conclusion  that  the evidence of  the plaintiff clearly  outweighs the  evidence of  the defendant  on the  following facts:

"After the contract  of  sale Exhibit B was signed  by the parties on August 30,  1946, the  purchaser  Claro Rivera,  plaintiff herein told the  vendor Mateo Matute,  defendant herein, to prepare empty sacks  for the sacking and packing of the copra which the former -would  load in  raid-November,  1946  (session of   Febuary 25, 1948, ,pp.  87 and  90,  t.s.n.).

"On October  17, 1946, Claro  Rivera  sold 2,000  long tons  of  copra  to the  South Cotton  Oil  Co., New  Orleans, represented  by John J. Gallagher of the  Gallagher-Toftman Corporation, as broker, to be  shipped from  Davao City in the second half  of November of said year on the Lykes Steamship (Exhibit C). At that time the prevailing market price of copra (rcsecada) in the Philippines was P14.00 per 100 kilos (session of March  10, 1948,  p. 127, t.s.n.). The plaintiff  presented a list  of buyer's price of copra  (rcsecada)  on various dates in September, October, November and December, 1946, and in January, February and March  1947, in  Manila, Iloilo, and Cebu,  certified to by  the  Director of Commerce on  September  30, 1947 (Exhibit K-l), together with 'Daily  advices from New York regarding fats and oils, certified to by  the Chief, Markets Division of the Bureau  of Commerce (Exhibit K).

"On October 24, 1946, Claro Rivera received from  the Philippine National Bank  advice of a letter of  credit  in his favor  in  the amount of $260,288  (Exhibit  D).  On the same date,  Cl'aro  Rivera informed Amadco Matute of the receipt  of said letter of credit and, after an  inquiry made  at  the Bank, Matute told Rivera that,  he was satisfied with the said  letter of credit, {session of  June 2, 1948;, p. 212, t.s.n.).

"On October 26, 1946, Claro  Rivera delivered to Amadeo Matute the sum  of  P10,000 as part of" the agreed advance partial payment of P30,000 of the purchase price of the copra  (Exhibit 2), although it was not yet  due at  the time according to the contract Exhibit  B. This  advance  payment of P10,000  was  made upon  supplication  of Matute, alleging  that  he would use the  amount in the purchase  of empty sacks but  he  failed to do bo.  (session  of February 25, 1948,. p. 93 t.s.n.; June 23, 1948,  p.  249, t.s.n.).

"On October 30, 1946, Claro Sivera paid another sum of P10,000 to Amadeo  Matute  (Exhibit E-l, and on the same date, the  latter delivered to the former  a letter  for  delivery  to Matute's encargado in Davao, after Rivera had informed Matute that he  (the former)' would load  copra on November  15,  1946  (session of  February 25,. 1948, p.  97, t.s.n.; June 2,  1948, p.  22,  t.s.n.).  .

"On November 1, 1946, Claro ,Rivera went  to  Davao City and, upon his  arrival thereat, he  found out  that  the empty sacks sent by  Amadeo Matute  were only  4,000 small ones  which  would hold 120  tons  in all  (session of February  25, 1948,  p.  95  t.s.n.).  As the  copra  was not  yet placed  in sacks, Claro  Rivera, who was then  in Davao, wrote  to Gallagher-Toftman Corporation on November 2, 1946, asking  for permission to. suspend  loading of  eopra until some  other time  (sessions of  June, 1948,  pp. 216 and 217, t.s.n.; June 23, 1948, p. 261,  t.s.n.).  In reply to his letter,  Rivera received.in  Davao  City on November 10, 1946, the letter Exhibit F of  Gallagher-Toftman  Corporation,  signed by J.  J. Gallagher and dated  November  8, 1946  (session   of February  25,  1948,  p. 96, t.s.n.).

"On November 11, 1946, Rivera left Davao  and arrived in Manila on  November   12, 1946  (Exhibits  F-l  and  F-l-a).   On the same date, November 11,  1946, Rivera's wife, RizaMna  Santos, % delivered to Amadeo  Matute the  sum  of  P7.000  as additional part1 payment for  the  1,300  tons  of copra  sold  by  Matute to Rivera  (Exhibit E-2). Upon  his arrival in  Manila, Rivera  told  MatutG  that  the sacks he (Matute)  promised  to send  to Davao  bad  not arrived there when he (Rivera) left Davao for Manila; Matute assured Rivera, in reply, that  6,000 empty sacks with a  total  capacity  of 180  tons  of copra  had  already been sent to Davao;  Rivera then; informed  Matute that the alleged  6,000  sacks would not be enough to contain 1,300  tons of copra;  Rivera,  after receiving Gallagher's, letter, Exhibit F, interviewed Gallagher and the latter suggested to the former to make arrangements with the steamship  company of "Lykes Brothers", regarding  the  date of  loading  of  copra;  the said  steamship  company  informed Rivera  that its  boat scheduled to sail  for  tho  east coast  of the United  States  would touch  the Port  of Davao on December 4,  1946;  and .Rivera,  on November 16, 1946, informed  Matute  that  he (Rivera)  would load  copra on December 4,  1946,  to  which  Matute  did' not  object  (session of February 25,  1948, pp. 90-101,  t.s.n.).

"On November  14,  1946,  two days  before  Matute  consented to postpone  to December 4, 1946, the loading'  of copra by Rivera, the latter paid  the  former P3,000  (Exhibit E-3), which  completed the advance  partial payment  of P30,000,  stipulated in their contract Exhibit  B.   The  loading  of copra  was  previously  scheduled  for November 15,  1946, but it was postponed  to  December  4, 1946, because  of  the  delay in sacking the copra  (sessions of June 2, 1948, pp. 207  and 216-217, t.s.n.; June 23, 1948, p. 258, t.s.n.).

'"On November  19, 1946,  Claro Rivera, while  in  Manila, received information from Jose Araullo, his assistant in  Davao City, that Matute's sacks  had not arrived at  the  latter  place.  Rivera informed Matuto of the information he received, and the latter  replied that  he had already sent  sacks to  Davao  City.  On November 20, 1940, Rivera bought 10,000 sacks that would hold 60 kilos of copra. each and he  loaded the same in a boat on November 22, 1946, to be taken  to  Davao  City.  (Sessions of  February  11,   1948, pp. 4-5,  t.s.n.  March 10, 1948, pp. 113-114, t.s.n.).

"On .November  24, 1946, Claro Rivera, his  son  and his employee by the  name  of  Nicomedes Aguilar  left for  Davao, City   in  an aeroplane and arrived there on  the same date (sessions of  February 11, 1948, p. 7, t.s.n.; March 10, 1948, pp. 116-117, t.s.n.).

"On November  26, 1946,  the 6,000 small  sacks'shipped by  Matute arrived  in Davao  City (session of March 10, 19-18, pp. 117 and 123, t.s.n.).   On the same date, November 26, 1946, Rivera and his companions left Davao City for La Union; when  they  arrived  in La Union, Rivera discovered that only  100 tons of copra were in sacks, because there were only ten laborers sacking copra,  and  so  Rivera asked Perez  the  encargado of Matute, to hire more laborers;  on November 27, 1946,,they started weighing  the  copra which  were already in sacks in La Union, and the next day, November 28, 1946, two  lighters or landing barges arrived in  La Union; on  November 30, 1946, the customs examiners who witnessed the weighing of the copra in La Union, issued the, certificate Exhibit  J,  stating  that Lighter No. 13  contains 3,425 sacks  of 140,599 kilos (rtoos) of copra (sessions of February 11, 1948, pp. 9, 10, 80, 35 and 363 t.s.n.; March 10,  1948,  pp. 118-120, t.s.n. June  2,  1948,  p.  203,  t.s.n.  The small sacks  sent by  Matute to Davao City  were loaded in a lighter on November 28, 194-8, to be taken to  Sigaboy and La Union (session of July 14,  1948,  pp. 285-286, t.s.n.).

"On December 1, 1946, while Claro Rivera was in Hacienda Sigaboy, he received a letter of V, Alonso, the encargado of Matute'in Hacienda La  Union (Exhibit  L-2); the next  morning,  December  2,  1946, a boat  of  the Luzon  Stevedoring  Co. arrived' in  Sigaboy; Rivera boarded this boat for La Union; upon his  arrival in  La Union, Eivera  conferred  with  Alonzo,  who showed  him Matute's  letter and informed  him  that  Matute  wanted to  see  him  (Rivera)  in Manila  immediately  and that Matute had instructed his encargados in his haciendas to  stop sacking  and weighing copra; Rivera then proceeded to Davao  City where he met Antonio Perez,  the representative of  Matute; Perez handed  to  Rivera a document"of assignment in favor  of Matute of  P200,000  (Exhibit  D-l), ,out  of the amount of P260,288, the value of the letter of credit issued by the National  City  Bank of  New York  in favor of Rivera,  and  Perez told Rivera that he (Rivera) should sign the said assignment (Exhibit D-1) upon  request  of Matute;   Rivera, in reply, told  Perez that he  would  prefer to sign the  said  document  of  assignment in Manila after conferring with Matute (session of March 10,  1948, pp. 131-138, t.s.n.).

"The landing barges which arrived in La Union on November 28, 1946, Jiad to wait there until December 3, 1946, because the copra then was not yet  ready  for hauling;  on December 3, 1946, only 240 tons of copra were  transported from La Union to Davao  City, and the delay was duo to the late arrival of  the empty  sacks and because there were only ten  laborers  sacking  and weighing copra in La  Union (sessions of March  10,  1948,  pp. 118-119, t.s.n.;  June 2,  1949, pp. 204-205, t.s.n.).

"When the S/S Frederick Lykes  called at Davao on December  4, 1946, there  were only 240 tons of copra ready for shipment because the rest of the copra in the various haciendas  were not yet ready to  be hauled to Davao City due to the lack of laborers  placing the copra in  sacks and weighing  the same; in that situation, it would take ten  days of  load 1,300 tons of copra, and the Captain  of the boat could  not  wait for that length of  time and he refused to load the 240 tons which were already in Davao City; according- to Rivera's contract with the steamship company, -the boat would only, remain  in Davao  for  loading within- four days.  (Sessions of  March 10, 1948, pp. 120-122, 125,  t.s.n.;  July 14, 1948, pp.  280-287, t.s.n.).

"On  the  same  date, December 4,  1946,  Claro Rivera  returned  to Manila because of the insistence, of Amadeo Matute to  have  a conference with him.   (Sessions of March 10, 1948, p. 126, t.s.n.; June 2, 1948, p. 206, 213/t.s.n.).  The S/S Frederick Isykes  left  Davao without1 loading  any  copra  on  December  5,  1946)  (Sessions  of March 10, 1948, pp. 120-121, 126, ta.it.-,  June 2, 1948, pp. 206, t.s.n.; July 14, 1948,  pp.  286-287, t.s.n.).

"Araullo,  the representative of Rivera in  Davao, sent a telegram to Rivera,  dated  December  5, 1946 (Exhibit  M), advising  him (Rivera) of the departures  from Davao  of the S/S Frederick Lykes without loading any copra.   (Sessions of March 10, 1948, pp.  143- 144,  t.s.n.; July 14, 1948, pp. 288-289, t.s.n.).

"On the same  date,  December 5,  1946,  Claro Rivera signed the assignment  of P200,000  (Exhibit D-l)  out  of the letter of credit (Exhibit D).   (Sessions of  February  25,  1948,  pp. 84-85,  t.s.n.; March 10, 1948, 127, t.s.n.,  June 2,  1948, 213, t.s.n.).

"A  letter  dated December 12,  1946 (Exhibit  M-l)  was, sent  to Claro Rivera by Lykes- Bros.  Steamship Co., Inc.,  of New Orleans, informing him of the departure of S/S Frederick Lykes  No. 12 from Davao on December 5,  1946, without loading copra. Rivera showed to Matute the telegram Exhibit M  and  the  letter  Exhibit M-l, together with the envelop Exhibit M~2, because, according to Rivera, it was the fault of Matute that the copra  was not placed in sacks  on time to have it loaded into the S/S Frederick Lykes  (session  of March 10, 1948, 127,  t.s.n., June 2, 1948, 213, t.s.n.).

"On December  13,  1946,  Claro Rivera delivered  to  Matute copy of the letter of credit which was in his possession, for which Matute issued  the receipt  Exhibit  D-2.   (Sessions  of February 25,  1948, p. 86, t.s.n.; June 2, 1948, p. 213, t.s.n.).

"In a letter  dated December 11,   1946,  Claro Rivera authorized Escudero & Company,  Inc., to sell 1,500 short tons of copra  at not less than $180.00  per ton  (C. I.  F. Pacific Coast)  for immediate shipment from the Port of Davao, which authorization was accepted by a representative of the company  (Exhibit N).  (Session of  February 25, 1948, pp.  55,  56, t.s.n.).  On December 15, 1946, a formal contract was entered into between Claro Rivera and tescudero and Company, Inc.  In this  contract, Rivera  offered to Escudero & Company Inc., to sell 1,300 long tons of copra  resecada which were  in the bodegas  of the six haciendas of  Araadeo  Matute in the Province of Davao,  situated  in  La  Union,   Sigaboy,  Tidlawan,  Monserrat, Magdug and Pundaguitan,  and the   latter agreed  to buy the  said copra at P360 per short'ton c. i. f. Pacific Coast.  Among other things, it was stipulated  in said contract that the buyer would pay  in advance the amount of 70 per cent of  the  total purchase price  of the , copra as soon. as  the  said copra is loaded on the landing- barges  of the Luzon Stevedoring Company in  Davao  and receipted for by the buyer's  manager, another 25 per cent upon presentation  of the bill of lading, and the balance of 5 per cent would be paid on the basis of landing weights and that the shipment of eopra would be made during the month of January, 1947, in the Polrt of Davao (Exhibit 0),

"Rivera's  contract  with Escudero  &  Company, Inc.,  was  made known by Rivera to Matute who agreed to the proposal of Rivera that he would load the copra about the end  of December,  1946. (Session of March  10, 1948, pp. 147-149, t.s.n.).  On December  23, 1946, while Rivera was  in Davao,  he received  a  telegram from Escudero, dated December  21,  1946,  informing him (Rivera) that the Steamer Benares would arrive in Davao on January 5, 1947,  for loading copra (Exhibit 0-1).

"Rivera informed Antonio Perez, the representative, of Matute in Davao, that he (Rivera)  would be loading copra oir January 5, 1947, in the Port of  Davao, to which Perez replied that he  would ask Matuto for permission to  continue  the delivery of copra  to him (Rivera).  (Session of March 10, 1948,  p.  t.s.n.). When  Rivera returned to Manila, ho received a telegram from Araullo,  his representative in  Davao, dated December 25, 1946 (Exhibit 0).   Rivera went to  see  Matute  and inform him  (Matute)  that  he (Rivera) would haul and load all the copra on  January 5, 1947,  Matute .then told Rivera  that  he  could make   arrangement with  Perez,  his eneargado in Davao.   On  the  same date, December  25, 1946,  Rivera returned to Davao and informed Perez that  Matute told him (Rivera) to arrange with  Perez  further delivery of. copra to him (Rivera). Perez allowed Rivera to haul only about 90 tons of copra, and then he  (Perez)  received another telegram from Matute, instructing him (Perez) to suspend the delivery of copra, so that after December 28? 1946, Matute did not allow Rivera to take  further delivery of copra. Rivera then returned to Manila and informed Matute that Perez  did not  want to  make  further  delivery' of copra, stating that  Rivera's . contract with  him  had already expired.  Rivera shipped  45  tons of  copra from Davao  to Manila negotiated with  the NACOCO to allow him (Rivera) to deposit in the NACOCO's bodega the rest of  the copra, but the NACOCO refused to accept due to advice from Matute, (Exhibit R).  (Sessions of March 10, 1948, pp. 156-159, t.s.n.; June 2, 1948, p: 216, t.s.n.; June  23, 1948,  p. 264; t.s.n.;  July  14, 1948,  pp 288-293-294, t.s.n.).

"In Hacienda La'Union, more than 556  tons of 100 kilos  each of copra were weighed up to December 20, 1946,  and more than 13 tons remained  unweighed;  when  the weighers arrived in Hacienda  La Union, the"copra was not placed in sacks; the weighing of copra m Hacienda Sigaboywas finished in one day, December 26,  1946; after leaving Hacienda Sigaboy on  December 27, 1946, the weighers proceeded to Hacienda Magdug where they weighed a  little more than 90 tons of copra until December 30, 1946, leaving  about 40 tons of copra  unweighed  because  Matute's  encargado  received  telegraphic instruction from Matute to stop weighing copra;  both  in Sigaboy and  Magdug copra  was being placed  in  sacks while weighing of the copra already sacked was in progress; Rivera was not in Magdug at the time weighing of copra in  said hacienda "was  stopped,  and so Nicomedes Aguilar, Rivera's representative, immediately returned to Davao City  in  a  landing bar^e which was  unloaded with  copra; Nlcomedes Aguilar worked for Claro Eivera  as his  representative in Davao  from November 15, 1940,  to March 5, 1947, when  he returned to Manila. (Session of February 11, 1948, pp. 13-14, 17-18, 22, 23, 31 and 32, t.s.n.).

"Jose  Araullo, the agent of Claro Rivera  in Davao, hired,  two landing barges on December  20, 1946, which were sent to haciendas Sigaboy  and  La Union to  be loaded with copra, but  they returned to Davao City  unloaded because of the refusal of the encargados of Matute in those haciendas to deliver copra to the  representative of Rivera; ArauIIo, upon his  arrival in Davao  City was informed by Perez, the representative of Matute in Davao, that similar incident: would not happen again  in  the future.   On  December 23, 1946, Araullo hired five landing barges for Rivera (session of July 14, 1948., pp. 302-303, 30S, t.s.n.).  On  December 25, 1946, two landing  barges arrived  in Davao  City from the  haciendas  unloaded with  copra because  the encargado  of  those haciendas refused  to  deliver copra, and  the matter was taken up with Perea who promised  that the incident  would never happen again (session of July 14, 1948, pp. 289- 290, t.s.n.).  On December 27,  1946, one landing barge  with a  capacity of  more than 30   tons, fully  loaded  with  copra, was  sent from Magdug to Davao City.   Two  lighters, one with  a  capacity of 140  tons and another of  100  tons,  and a landing  barge of 30-ton capacity were able to haul copra from Hacienda La Union to Davao City.  (Session  of February  11, 1948, pp. 34-35,  t.s.n.).

"The letter of credit in  favor of Claro Rivera was extended up to December  31, 1946  (session  of February 25, 1949, p. 101,  t.s.n.).

"Claro Rivera received  a  cablegram from  the South  Cotton  Oil Co. of  New  Orleans (Exhibit C-l), cancelling  the company's contract with Kivera for the  purchase of copra (Exhibit C).  (Session of  Februay  25,  1948, pp.  80-81,  t.s.n.).

"On March 29, 1947, Amadeo Matute  sold to Clark, Jamilla & Company, Inch,  276  tons of copra from Talomo and 244  tons from Moriserrat, both in the province of Davao, which copra, according to, Rivera was  part of the   copra  previously sold to him by  Matute (Exhibit S, T., T-l, U and  TJ-1).   (Sessions to March 10, 1948, p. 160, t.s.n.;  June 2,  1948,  pp.  170-171  and  178-177;  t.s.n.).  "After narrating some bi the facts established by a preponderance of the evidence, the Court  will proceed to  consider  one  by one the claims of the plaintiff  against the defendant.

"The plaintiff  prays that  he be  reimbursed  of  the  amount of P10,000 as  the purchase price paid by him for 10,000 empty sacks which  he sent to  Davao  City to  be  used for  packing the copra sold  by the defendant to him, on the ground  that according to the contract Exhibit  B, the defendants,  as vendor, will furnish all the sacks and other necessary materials to be used in sacking the copra. Plaintiff's contention is rendered ineffective by the fact that  in a letter  dated  November 22, 1946, signed by him and addressed to the defendant (Exhibit R-l), he stated that the  10,000 safety sacks which  he sent to  Davao were  on his account, and that he was giving them from of charge to Matute as a help  in hastening up  the packing and  loading of copra.   In view of the said letter (Exhibit K-l) of Claro  Rivera, he has no  right now  to claim  from Matute  the  sum of P10,000 which he paid for the  sacks.

"The plaintiff also prays that he be reimbursed of the amount of P30,000 which he  paid to the defendant  (Exhibit E, E-l,  E-2- and  E-8)  as part payment  in advance of the purchase  price of the 1,300 tons of copra sold  by defendant  to  him,  according to the contract Exhibit  B.  The plaintiff is not entitled to the reimbursement of this amount of F80,000 because he admitted having received copra  from the  defendant  as follows:

On November 3, 1946,  140,599 kilos in 3,425 sacks (Exhibit J);

On December 3,  1946, 100,116 kilos in 2,150 sacks (Exhibit J-l), equivalent  to 240,715 tons,  and later on  90 tons (Session of March 10, 1948, p.  155, t.s.n.),  making a  total of 339,715 tons.   According to the contract Exhibit B, 'from the total- weight of the copra, 12 1/2percent  will be deducted  for shrinkage',  which  deduction is equivalent to 41,339  tons,  leaving a balance of  289,376  tons, which,  at  P172.50 a ton, would cost P49,917.36.  The defendant on January 28,  1947,  received from Yek Hun Trading  Corporation for the account of the plaintiff the sum of F8,498.10  (Exhibit  Z, which must be deducted from P49.917.36, leaving  a  balance  of P41.149.26. Deducting from  this balance  the  advance  payment of  P30,000,  the plaintiff Claro Rivera would still be indebted to the defendant Amadeo Matute in the sum of  P1,419.26.

"The plaintiff contends  that  the  weight of the  sacks  should be deducted from the gross weight of  330.715 tons because  the  copra was weighed with the  sacks containing the  copra.  The  Court, however, does not consider sound this contention of the plaintiff.  The contract  Exhibit B provides  that  the copra  would be  placed in sacks before it is weighed, and the buyer  is only entitled to a  reduction from the total weight of  copra of  12½ percent  for shrinkage.  The  contract does not state that th« plaintiff would be  also entitled to a seduction in weight,  representing the weight  of the sacks.  Moreover,  the  evidence does not  show the weight  of the sacks used  in  packing the copra.  If  the  intention of the  parties were to deduct  from the total weight of the  copra  the  weight of the sacks in which  the  copra was placed, there should  have been an express  provision to  that effect in  the  contract Exhibit  B,  and in weighing the  copra the weighers should have weighed first the' empty  sacks, so as  to enable  them to compute later the deduction from the  gross weight of the copra in sacks.

"According to the amended complaint of the plaintiff, he is claiming from the  defendant the  payment  of P221,000 as damages resulting from the failure of the said defendant to comply with his contractual obligations  to  sell  to  the said plaintiff  1,300  tons  of  copra.  The plaintiff,   in his memorandum dated July  14,  1950,  signed  by  his attorneys,  begs leave  to reserve  his  right to further amend  his complaint in order that  the same may conform to the evidence by increasing the damages claimed by him from P221,000 to P234,141.48,

"The Court has already shown  in this decision that  the plaintiff . received from the defendant  289.376 tons of copra.  Deducting the 289.376 tons of copra from  the 1,300  tons  of  copra  which the  defendant solcj to the plaintiff in  Exhibit B, there  would remain a balance of  '1,010,624 tons  of copra which the defendant  has  refused to deliver  to  the plaintiff.

"In  order, however, to determine whether or not the  refusal of the defendant  to deliver  to  the plaintiff the. balance of  1,010 tons of copra  was legally  justified, the Court  shall proceed  to  inquire into  the respective obligations of  the plaintiff,  as purchaser, and of the defendant,  as seller.

"According to  the contract  Exhibit  B, the defendant,  as  vendor was  under  obligation  of  sacking, weighing and packing the copra and  would  furnish  all  the  sacks and  other  necessary materials for that  purpose,' while the  plaintiff,  as buyer, would defray the expenses  of putting the  copra  into  landing  barges  and  hauling said copra to the ship.  The contract  also, provides that  the  period for loading the copra shall cover  120 days from  the  date  of the execution  of the contract.   The  contract was  executed on  August 30, 1946,  and the period  of 120  days  ended on December 28, 1946. The  loading pf copra was  first  scheduled on  November 15, 1946 which  was.  postponed  to .December 4, 1946, and further postponed to January  5, 1947.  Both postponements were  due  to the failure of the defendant to provide the necessary sacks and  laborers to place the copra in sacks.

"The  contention of the defendant that the plaintiff had not complied  with his  contractual obligations as  buyer  of the copra  is belied by the  acts  of  the defendant himself.   The  defendant  accepted the various  payments made by  the plaintiff amounting  to P30,000 as advance  partial payment of the purchase price  of  the 1,300  tons of copra  sold by  him  to the  plaintiff.  The  defendant was duly informed  by  the plaintiff of the letter  of credit  in  the amount of P260,000  issued by the National  City  Bank of New York in favor of the  said plaintiff, out of which  amount, upon request of the defendant,  the  sum of P200,000 was  assigned  to him by  the plaintiff.  This  is a manifest  conformity  on  the  part of the  defendant to the  said letter of, credit in compliance with tnefeplaintiff's obligation to have the corresponding Bank  certify to the defendant that a  sufficient cash was deposited  therein  for the payment  of the balance  of the purchase  price  of the copra.  The letter  of credit  was  extended to December 31, 1946,  aside  from  the fact that in plaintiff's contract with Escudero & Company  dated December  15, 1946 (Exhibit 9),  Escudero promised to pay  in advance to Claro Rivera 7 per cent of the total purchase price of the copra. This  fact was communicated  by Rivera  to  Matute who  agreed to the extension of the period of loading  of  the  copra  until January  5, 1947.   However, before that date came, or  on or  about December 28, 1946,  Matute ordered his encargados to suspend further delivery of copra to Rivera on the ground that the period  of 120 days for loading fixed in  the contract Exhibit  B  expired  on December 28, 1946.  When delivery of copra was, suspended on December  28, 1946, Matute did not .give as a grourid for terminating the contract Rivera's failure to deposit cash in the Bank, instead of  a  letter  of  credit to answer for  the  payment  of the  balance of the purchase price.   At that time  Matuto only alleged that  the contract terminated on  December  28,, 1946, due  to Rivera's  failure to load the copra wjthin the period of 120 days' stipulated  in  the contract.

"From  the facts proven, it has been  sufficiently established to the satisfaction of the Court that the delay in hauling, the  copra from the various  plantations of the  defendant  and  loading  said  copra on  the  S/S Frederick Lykes  on December 4,  1946 and  the  failure to load  said copra on the S/S Benares on or about January 5, 1947, were  due to defendant's fault  of  not furnishing on time sufficient number  of  empty sacks for sacking copra and not  employing  the necessary number  of  laborers  to  perform that work prior  to  the expiration of the period fixed  for  loading  the copra.

"After the Court  has arrived at the conclusion  that the  refusal of the defendant to  deliver to the plaintiff the balance of 1,010,624 tons  of  copra  was'  not legally  justified  and  that the  said de- fendant is liable to  the plaintiff  to  pay damages for  lost profit, the Court shall proceed to  determine  the bases  for computing said damages.

"The plaintiff in  arguing  that  he  is  entitled to the  amount of P234,141.48  as  damages, proposes that  the  computation be based on  the difference between the  price  of  P380 per  ton fixed in the contract Exhibit S  whereby Amadeo  Matute sold to Clark, Jamilla &  Co., Inc., the  copra m his plantations on March 29,  1947,  and tho price  of  P72.50 per  ton  fixed  in the contract  Exhibit B between  the plaintiff and  the defendant. entered' into  on  August 30, 1946.

"The Court  docs   not consider  sound  plaintiff's proposal.   The measure of damages  should be  based  on  the   difference  between the market price on the date  agreed upon  for  delivery which, in this case, was on or about  December 28,  1946,  and the price of P172.05 agreed  upon between tho parties  to the  contract  of  sale Exhibit 8,  dated August  30, 1946.

"The contract  between. Claro Kivera and  Escudero & Company, Inc.,  entered  into on December 15,  1946  (Exhibit O)  fixes the price  of copra sold  in the  six  haciendas of  the  defendant  Amadeo Matute at P360 per short ton, c.i.f Pacific  Coast,  with a provision in  said contract that all  the expenses for  sacking,  weighing  and hauling and other expenses that may be  incurred from the bodegas in  tho haciendas until  tho copra  is  loaded  into the vessel of the buyer will  be  for  the  account of the seller, and that  the seller further agreed to pay for the freight and marine insurance, includ- ing war risk.

"The Director  of  Commerce  certified  in Exhibit  K-l,  dated September 13,  1947,  that, according to the  records of the  Bureau, tho buyers' prices of copra resecada  on the  respective  dates  mentioned in his  said certificate in Manila, Cebu and Hollo were the various amounts stated therein corresponding to said dates and places. On December 19, 1946, the buyers prices in Manila  wero from P31-50 to P32 per 100 kilos;  in Cebu from P30  to  P33;  and in  Iloilo, P30; from  P33  and P37;  and  on  January 2, 1947, in Manila, from P32.50 to P33; in Cebu from P33 to  P37;  and in Iloilo from P30  to P33.

"Taking into consideration1 the price agreed upon in  the  contract between  Claro  Rivera  and  Escudero & Company, Inc.  (Exhibit C), and  tho  quotations of  buyers'  prices  in  Manila,  Cebu  and Iloilo   on  December  19,  19-46, and January  2,  1947, in  connection with  the  differences in  the  buyers'  prices  of   copra has  arrived at the  conclusion that the  buyers'  prices  in  Davao  City on  or about December  28, 1946, were  not less  than' P25  per 100 kilos or P250 per ton; so that the 1,010.624  tons  of  copra which  the defendant  should have  delivered  to the  plaintiff  on  or  about December 28,  1946, had a total market value in the City of Davao bn or about December 28, 1946, of P252,656.  The  price  of copra per  ton, as agreed upon  by.  the  plaintiff  and the  defendant  in their contract Exhibit B,  was  P172.50,  It must  be  taken into account that the  purchaser Claro Rivera, according  to  the  contract Exhibit B,  had to bear the expenses  of  hauling  the copra from the  defendant's various haciendas  and of loading  said copra into the ship which the plaintiff himself admitted in his memorandum to be P12.50 per  toiij so that under the contract Exhibit  B, each  ton of eopra  placer!  in  Davao  City  would cost, the plantiff  P185; including  the expenses  of  hauling  and  loading.  Accordingly, 1,010.624 tons of copra, at P185  per  ton, would have  a total value of P186,695.44.  The  difference  between  P252,656  and  P186,965.44 is P65,690.56,  representing the damages suffered by the  plaintiff due  to  defendants failure  to deliver to the plaintiff  on December 28, 1946, the balance of 1,010.624 tons of copra.

"The  Court has already arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff  still owes the defendant  the  sum  of, P11,419.26,  so  that  the damages to  which the plaintiff is  entitled  to  recover from  the defendant, after  deducting  the  sum  of  P11,419.26,  would  bo  the amount of  P54,271.30.   In  computing  the damages,  the Court also took into consideration the fact  that the  plaintiff in  the  expectation that he would realize considerable profit out of the transaction, due  to  the  continuous rise in the price of  copra, decided to waive his  right to  claim  from the  defendant the sum of  F10,000,  the value of the 10,000  empty sacks which he  sent to Davao  in order to hasten up the sacking and weighing of  the  copra before  the date  scheduled  for  loading  it  into  the ship.

Wherefore,  judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff Claro  Rivera and  against  the defendant Amadeo  Matute in  the amount of  P54,271.30, with  legal  interest  thereon  at the  rate  of 6 per cent per annum from the date of this decision until  the said amount  is  fully  paid, with,  costs  in  favor of the  plaintiff  and against the defendant."

 On the basis of the record we fully agree to the findings of fact made by the lower court and make them our own. We are also in accord  with  the  trial court's holding that the  failure  to  fully carry out the terms of the contract of sale was due entirely  to  the fault  of the  defendant among other things,  because  of his failure  or neglect  to employ the number of  laborers necessary to sack, weigh, and pack the copra he  sold to the plaintiff and also by reason of his decision to suspend further delivery of the copra from December 28, 1946, on the trivial ground that the period of three months mentioned in the contract for. delivery and for loading of the product had expired.  In fact, said failure on the part of the defendant to comply with his contract is not entirely free from suspicion that it was deliberate,  in  view of the then  rising  price of copra in the market, so that the copra not delivered  could be  sold to  another as  in fact it was sold at a greater profit  to  Clark, Jamilla &  Co.,  Inc. for P380  per ton which is much  higher than P172.50 per ton, the price at which he sold it to the plaintiff.  We also agree  with the trial court on its rejection of the contention of the plaintiff that the weight of  the sacks used  as containers for the P30.715 tons should be deducted from the gross weight, for the reason that there is nothing in the contract,  Exhibit "B", on the  contended reduction, to say nothing of the fact that there  was no evidence as to the weight of said sacks, which weight should have been determined, beforehand had the parties  really contemplated said reduction.

We, however, disagree with the trial  court, on  its  overruling the claim of plaintiff-appellant for  the price of the 10,000  empty sacks  which he had bought and sent to Davao for  sacking the  copra sold  to him,  including the coat of transportation,  all  in the  amount of P10.227.50. It is true as stated by the trial court that these sacks were donated by Rivera to Matute.  However, the donation had a purpose and a consideration, namely: that the defendant with the use of said  sacks would  be enabled to comply with his contract  on  time.   However,  the  donation was rendered useless and in vain due not only to defendant's failure to employ  the  necessary laborers to sack,  weigh and pack the copra but also because he  suspended further delivery of copra on December 28, 1946.   Consequently, on moral grounds alone the cost  of the sacks and the expense of  transporting them to Davao should be reimbursed to the plaintiff.  Even from the legal standpoint, the act of the plaintiff in  giving the sacks free may be considered, a conditional donation, conditioned on the full delivery of the 1,300 tons of copra on time so as to load it on the boat that called at the port of Davao, and that because of the failure to comply with the condition, the donation may be said to  have been automatically revoked.

Now, as regards the measure of damages, we agree with the trial court that it should be the difference between the stipulated price  per ton of P172.50 under the contract and the market price on the date agreed upon for delivery, which was around  December 28,  1946.  Plaintiff  Tiimself according to his brief (page 53) agrees to this basis for computing damages.  Later  on, however,  he insists that damages should  be computed on the basis of the difference between the P172.50 and the P380.00 which was the price per ton of the copra sold by Matute to Clark, Jamilla & Co., Inc! on March 29, 1947.  Said basis would clearly be unreasonable and untenable.  The difference in  point of time between December 28, 1946 and March 29, 1947, was considerable.  There is no assurance that had Matute complied with his contract,  Bivera would  have waited three months,  until March 1947, before selling in order to realize a bigger  profit.  He could not have waited  because he had no warehouse in Davao in which to store said copra. In fact, in December 1946, plaintiff entered into a formal contract with Escudero  &  Co., Inc.  offering to  sell the latter 1,200 long tons of copra, apparently the same commodity  he had  bought from the  defendant,  at the rate of P860 per short ton, but as correctly stated by the trial court, this P360 was not the net price because it included the cost of sacking, weighing  and hauling and other expenses that may be incurred in  transportation from the bodegas in the different haciendas  of Matute to the vessels engaged by the  buyer, as well as  the  freight and marine insurances, because it was c. i. f. Pacific Coast (U.S.A.).

Had Matute in December 1946, when  he breached hia contract with Rivera, already found a buyer for a higher price, then said higher  price might yet be adopted as the basis for computing damages.  But the record shows that Matute found  a  buyer  only three months  after, that is, on March 29, 1947.

After considering the different price quotations of copra in Manila, Cebu and Iloilo in the month of December, 1946, the  trial  court arrived at the  amount  of P250  as the average price per ton to serve as a basis or measure for damages.   Considering the conditions obtaining at the time, and  in the absence of more satisfactory and reliable data or evidence  on this point,  we believe and  find that the price of P250 fixed by the trial court is  a fair, reasonable and conservative  estimate of the price of  copra in Davao on or about December 28,  1946, and that it may be used as a legitimate basis on which to compute the damages suffered by plaintiff.

In finding  P54,271.80  as the  amount of damages to which  the plaintiff is entitled,  as stated at the beginning of this decision,  the  trial court  to ascertain the number of tons of copra  undelivered, to  be used as a basis, subtracted from 1,300 tons  stipulated in the  contract, only 289.376 the equivalent of the 330.715 tons  actually delivered, after  deducting from the 330.715 the  amount of shrinkage of  12%  per  cent equivalent to 41.339 tons, to arrive at the  balance  of  1,010.624.  In this,  the lower court erred.'  What should have been done was to subtract the 330.715 tons  gross, without  deduction  for  shrinkage, from the 1,300 thereby leaving a balance of 969.285 tons also  gross undelivered.   The reason for this  is that the 1,300 tons stipulated in the contract was  gross, that ih, without reduction for shrinkage.

Now, to determine the sum of which Rivera  would have realized in the sale of  this copra not delivered, we  shall multiply the  969.285 tons by  the  price of P250 per ton fixed by the  trial  court, which  would  give the amount of P242,321.25.  To ascertain Rivera's net profits, we have to deduct  from this gross sum, the amount which the undelivered 969.285 tons would have cost him.   But Rivera did not have to pay  for  all this balance of 969.285 tons because he was entitled to 12% per cent shrinkage which is equivalent to 121.161 tons.  Subtracting this amount of shrinkage from 969.285 will give a net balance of 848.124 tons.  Multiply this by the price of P172.50 per ton fixed in the contract, will  give P146,301.39 the  amount  which Rivera would have paid  to Matute had the  latter made delivery.  To this we should add the expense which Rivera would have incurred in hauling this copra from the different bodegas in Davao to the boat,  which is P12.50 per ton. Multiplying this amount  by 969.285  will give P12.116.06 which added to 146,301.39 will give a total of P158,417.45,  the amount which Rivera  would have  paid  for the undelivered  copra and the expense he would  have incurred to place it at the pier for shipment.  The difference between P242,821.25 and  P158,417.45  which is P83.903.80  is the amount of the  profits or  damages  to  which Rivera is entitled.   To this should be added the P10.227.50, the cost and expense for transportation  of the 10,000  empty sacks already mentioned, giving  a  total of P94.131.30.

Again,  Matute does not  have to pay the above  entire amount for the reason that Rivera has not yet fully paid him  for  the P330.715  gross  tons  delivered.   We  should first deduct from the  330.715  gross tons  the 12 1/4 per cent  shrinkage equivalent to 41.339 giving a balance of 289.376 tons net.   Multiplying this by P172.50,  the price per ton  fixed  in  the  contract will  give P49.917.36 which  is the price of the copra delivered.  Deducting  from this the sum  of P30.000 advanced by Rivera  and P8,498.10 paid  by Yek Hua Trading & Co. and applied to Rivera's account or a  total  of P38.498.10 would  leave a balance of Pll.419.26  still owing by Eivera to Matute.  Subtracting this amount from P94,131.30 gives P82.712.04, the amount  now payable to plaintiff Rivera  by Matute.

 Plaintiff claims  that  interest should  be paid on the  amount of damages  from  the  date  of  the filing of the complaint  instead  of from  the date of  decision of the trial court.  If suit  were for the payment of a  definite sum of money the contention might be tenable.  However, "it  is  for  damages,  unliquidated  and  not known  until definitely  ascertained,  assessed and  determined  by the courts  after  proof  (Montilla vs.  Corporacion de P. P. Agustinos, 25 Phil., 447; Lichauco vs. De Guzman, 38 Phil., 302).  So we agree with the trial  court that  interest should be  from the date of the decision.

Plaintiff-appellant  maintains the theory that from the date of the. contract, Exhibit "A", he became the owner of the copra sold to him.  Consequently, defendant Matute had no right to dispose of the same as  he did in selling said copra to Clark, Jamilla &  Co., Inc.  We disagree. The commodity or article sold to him under the contract, Exhibit "A",  was part  of  the copra stored in the  different bodegas of Matute.  It was indeterminate and not identified.  It had  first  to be separated from the whole  stock, then placed in sacks, weighed and packed and then delivered to the plaintiff.  Only then, could plaintiff consider himself . the owner thereof.  Before that time, it was still  under the custody and ownership of the defendant.  Were We to accept the  theory of  plaintiff on  this part, let us suppose that before delivery of the copra to him the bodega or warehouse had burned  down resulting in the  destruction or loss of the copra,  or  supposing  said copra had been stolen, would plaintiff  have been willing to  assume  the loss?  Again, if plaintiff had really  considered himself the owner of said copra  from the time  of the execution of the  contract, Exhibit  "A", then having full  custody and right of disposal  as owner, he  should  have  taken charge  of  the  sacking, weighing  and packing; employed the number of laborers required  and  provided the sacks necessary to be used  as  containers in  order  to  prepare the  said  copra for loading into the  vessels, and then charged the expenses incurred by him in sacking, weighing and packing, to  the  defendant.  When he  did not do all this in, order  to be able to load the copra into  the waiting vessels in Davao, it was  because he must have known and believed  that  he was  not yet the  owner of the copra and so could not dispose of it.  If he considered himself the owner, why did he in frustration  cross his arms and allow Matute to  delay  the sacking,  weighing  and packing of the  copra,  and later  abide  by Matute's  order from Manila suspending further delivery, when as  owner,  as  he   claims, he  could have  disregarded such  suspension  and  ordered his own  men  and  laborers to  take charge of  the  bodega, and  sack,  weigh  and pack  the copra for  transportation to the pier? We  hold that considering the attending circumstances, the mere execution of the contract  did not serve to  transfer  title" over the copra to  Rivera.

In  view  of  the foregoing,  with the modification that the amount to be awarded to plaintiff-appellant  Rivera be increased  from  P54.271.30  to  P82.712.04, with legal  interest from the date of this judgment, the decision appealed from, is hereby affirmed with costs.

Parás,  C. J., Padilla, Reyes,  A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion and Endeneia, JJ., concur.

---

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING:


REYES, J. B. L., J.,

I concur with the decision except as to the acceptance of the price of P250 per ton found by the lower Court as a  basis  for the computation  of  plaintiff's  damages,   I believe that the basis should be the highest price between the date of delivery and, "the  filing of the  action; i.e.,  plaintiff's contract with Escudero and  Co., Inc.,  at  the price of P360  a ton, or else the price at which  defendant sold his copra to Clark, Jamilla &  Co., Inc, P380 per ton, considering that the copra thus  sold  should have been delivered  to plaintiff herein,  and  had  been  partly paid for in advance by him (Suiliong  & Co. vs. Nanyo Shoji Kaisha,  42 Phil., 722; 46 Am. Jur. 804-805).

As the decision stands now, we are  giving Matute  a premium  for  his deliberate breach of the contract with plaintiff-appellant, and  allowing him to  keep the  profit he  has made  (P380 less P250,  per ton)  in selling  and delivering the copra to Clark, Jamilla & Co.,  Inc.  Where, as in this  case, the breach is intentional and deliberate, we  are faced  by  plain malice  or fraud (dolo), which is immoral  and odious  in  law; and it  should be sternly repressed by wiping out as much-as possible the  profit derived by  the seller from  his  acts in bad faith.   The prospect of  better profits can never be  an excuse  for violating lawful and  binding contracts.