ELENA JANE DUARTE VS MIGUEL SAMUEL A.E.

DURAN
G.R. NO. 173038, 14 September 2011, FIRST DIVISION (Del Castillo, J.)

FACTS:

Miguel Duran offered to sell his laptop to Elena Duarte for p15,000. Since the latter was
still undecided when he made the offer, he left it with her and after two days, she agreed to the
sale and gave p5, 000 as down payment. A subsequent instalment of p3,000 was paid thru
Josephine DY, a common friend, who signed a handwritten receipt as proof of payment. Upon
demand of the balance, Duarte offered p2,000 stating that the laptop was only p10,000. When a
demand letter was sent to her, she denied having a contract of sale stating that the laptop was a
security for Dys loan and when the latter was unable to pay, Dy offered to sell the laptop
instead.

In the suit for a collection of sum of money filed before the MTCC, the court decided that
there was a contract of sale between Duarte and Duran but the RTC reversed the decision. The
CA reversed the decision of the RTC and reinstated the MTCC decision.

ISSUE: Whether or not there was a valid contract of sale.

HELD:

Yes. The absence of a written contract of sale does not mean otherwise. The parties are
bound by it whether the contract is verbal or in writing because there is no form required.
Respondent need only show a preponderance of evidence which he did by submitting his
affidavit and that of his witness as well as the demand letter. Evidence submitted by respondent
weighs more than petitioners bare denials.

The Statute of Frauds applies to executory and not completed, executed or partially
executed contracts. In this case, the contract of sale has already been partially executed because
the possession of the laptop was already transferred to petitioner and the partial payments had
been made by her.

Wherefore the petition DENIED. The assailed resolution of the Court of Appeals is
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.