Scribd
Upload
19 views1 page

Perfected Contract of Sale Ruling

Respondent offered to sell a laptop to Petitioner for PHP 15,000. Petitioner agreed to buy it in installments, paying PHP 5,000 initially and PHP 3,000 and PHP 7,000 on later dates. Petitioner paid the initial amount and PHP 3,000 but then only offered PHP 2,000 for the remaining balance, claiming the laptop was only worth PHP 10,000. Respondent sued, and the court found that a valid contract of sale had been formed when the parties agreed on the object, price, and payment terms, even without a written contract, since the contract had been partially executed through payment and laptop possession transfer.

Uploaded by

nenenenene
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
19 views1 page

Perfected Contract of Sale Ruling

Respondent offered to sell a laptop to Petitioner for PHP 15,000. Petitioner agreed to buy it in installments, paying PHP 5,000 initially and PHP 3,000 and PHP 7,000 on later dates. Petitioner paid the initial amount and PHP 3,000 but then only offered PHP 2,000 for the remaining balance, claiming the laptop was only worth PHP 10,000. Respondent sued, and the court found that a valid contract of sale had been formed when the parties agreed on the object, price, and payment terms, even without a written contract, since the contract had been partially executed through payment and laptop possession transfer.

Uploaded by

nenenenene
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Duarte v.

Duran, GR 173038, Sept 14, 2011 (Civil Law; Contract of Sale)


DEL CASTILLO, J.

FACTS: Respondent, on February 14, 2002, he offered to sell a laptop computer for the
sum of P15,000.00 to petitioner thru the help of a common friend, Josephine Dy (Dy).
Since petitioner was undecided, respondent left the laptop with petitioner for two days. On
February 16, 2002, petitioner told respondent that she was willing to buy the laptop on
installment. Respondent agreed; thus, petitioner gave P5,000.00 as initial payment and
promised to pay P3,000.00 on February 18, 2002 and P7,000.00 on March 15, 2002. On
February 18, 2002, petitioner gave her second installment of P3,000.00 to Dy, who signed
the handwritten receipt allegedly made by petitioner as proof of payment. But when Dy
returned to get the remaining balance on March 15, 2002, petitioner offered to pay only
P2,000.00 claiming that the laptop was only worth P10,000.00. Due to the refusal of
petitioner to pay the remaining balance, respondent thru counsel sent petitioner a demand
letter dated July 29, 2002.

Petitioner, however, denied writing the receipt dated February 18, 2002, and receiving the
demand letter dated July 29, 2002. Petitioner claimed that there was no contract of sale.

ISSUE: Whether or not there is a perfected contract of sale.

RULING: Yes, there was a contract of sale between the parties. The absence of a written
contract of sale does not mean otherwise. A contract of sale is perfected the moment the
parties agree upon the object of the sale, the price, and the terms of payment. Once
perfected, the parties are bound by it whether the contract is verbal or in writing because
no form is required. Contrary to the view of petitioner, the Statute of Frauds does not apply
in the present case as this provision applies only to executory, and not to completed,
executed or partially executed contracts.In this case, the contract of sale had been partially
executed because the possession of the laptop was already transferred to petitioner and the
partial payments had been made by her. Thus, the absence of a written contract is not fatal
to respondents case. Respondent only needed to show by a preponderance of evidence that
there was an oral contract of sale, which he did by submitting in evidence his own affidavit,
the affidavit of his witness Dy, the receipt dated February 18, 2002 and the demand letter
dated July 29, 2002.

You might also like