TERESITA B. MENDOZA vs.

BETH DAVID

FACTS:

- Mendoza ordered three sets of furniture from David worth P185,650 and
paid an initial deposit of P40,650.

-Mendoza and David agreed on the specifications of the dining set, sofa set
and tea set including the material and quality.

- Mendoza cancelled some of the furniture she ordered and David agreed to
the cancellation.

-On 12 April 1997, Mendoza paid an additional deposit of P40,000.

-When David delivered the dining set to Mendoza on 17 April 1997, Mendoza
rejected the set because of inferior material and poor quality. Mendoza
likewise rejected the sala set and the tea set for the same reason.

-When Mendoza requested a refund of her total deposit ofP80,650, David

refused. Mendoza then sent David a letter dated 27 May 1997 demanding
the refund of her deposit but David ignored the demand letter.4

-The parties failed to arrive at an amicable settlement. Thus, Mendoza filed a

complaint for collection of money with damages.5

-DAVID’S Defense: She and Mendoza agreed on the material and quality of
the furniture Mendoza ordered since that was the normal practice for "made
to order" furniture. She delivered some of the furniture which was received
by Mendoza’s father. However, Mendoza could not pay the balance of the
price and requested payment on installment which David rejected. As a
result of Mendoza’s non-payment, David reclaimed the furniture already
delivered and informed Mendoza she could get the furniture upon payment
of the balance of P105,000. When David received Mendoza’s demand letter,
she refused to comply with Mendoza’s request for a refund of the deposit
since all the three sets of furnituree Mendoza ordered were already finished
and delivered on the agreed date.

-MTC: dismissed Mendoza’s complaint; there was already a perfected

contract which imposes reciprocal obligations; no proof that the furniture
was not in accordance with agreed specifications

-RTC: affirmed MTC’s decision; Mendoza should pay for the furniture; upon
payment, David should deliver the furniture
-CA: affirmed lower courts’ decision; no proof that the furniture sets did not
meet the specifications.

ISSUE 1: Whether it was a made to order sale or a sale by

description or sample

HELD: it was a made to order sale

RATIO:

-David alleges that the three sets of furniture were "made to order" in
accordance with the usual practice of furniture stores. On the other hand,
Mendoza insists that the transaction was a sale by sample or description
which can be rescinded as provided under Article 148120 of the Civil Code.

- sale by sample: a small quantity is exhibited by the seller as a fair

specimen of the bulk, which is not present and there is no opportunity to
inspect or examine the same.; the parties treated the sample as the standard
of quality and that they contracted with reference to the sample with the
understanding that the product to be delivered would correspond with the
sample. There is an implied warranty that the goods shall be free from any
defect which is not apparent on reasonable examination of the sample and
which would render the goods unmerchantable.

- sale of goods by description: where the buyer has not seen the article
sold and relies on the description given to him by the seller, or has seen the
goods, but the want of identity is not apparent on inspection." The
description creates a warranty that the goods will conform to that description
and that the goods are of merchantable quality.26

-there is a finding that that the transaction in this case was a "made to
order" agreement. Other than Mendoza’s bare allegations that the
transaction was a sale by sample or description, Mendoza failed to produce
evidence to substantiate her claim.

-The sale of furniture in this case is not a sale by sample. The term sale by
sample does not include an agreement to manufacture goods to correspond
with the pattern. In this case, the three sets of furniture were
manufactured according to the specifications provided by the buyer.
Mendoza did not order the exact replica of the furniture displayed in
David’s shop but made her own specifications on the measurement,
material and quality of the furniture she ordered.

-Neither is the transaction a sale by description. Mendoza did not rely on any
description made by David when she ordered the furniture. Mendoza
inspected the furniture displayed in David’s furniture shop and
made her own specifications on the three sets of furniture she
ordered.

ISSUE 2: whether there was a breach of contract between the buyer

and the seller

HELD: NO

RATIO:

- Breach of Contract Not Proven (Mendoza failed to prove that the

finished product did not comply with her specifications); it was
proven that there is a perfected contract of sale of furniture; hence,
the buyer is obligated to pay the price and the seller is obligated to
deliver the things upon full payment of price.

-It is undisputed that there was a perfected contract of sale of furniture

between Mendoza and David. The three sets of furniture were delivered or
ready for delivery within the agreed period. The issue for resolution is
whether there was breach of contract on David’s part. The Court finds none.

- The furniture produced comply with the tenor of the contract since there
are no written specifications regarding the material and quality and Mendoza
failed to prove that the furniture were not in accordance with the agreed
specifications.

-The records show that the parties agreed that the furniture should be made
of narra. Mendoza admitted that the furniture delivered was made of narra
but was of inferior quality. She also complained of deep nail marks and rough
surface at the back of the table and chairs. However, Mendoza failed to
prove these allegations.

-In civil cases, the burden of proof rests on the party who asserts the
affirmative of an issue based on the pleadings or the nature of the case.29 In
this case, the burden lies on Mendoza who must prove her allegation that
there was breach of contract. After reviewing the records of the case, the
Court finds that Mendoza failed to substantiate her claim of breach of
contract. Mendoza failed to present any evidence to overcome the
presumption that the transaction was fair and regular.

Dispositive: Petitioner Teresita B. Mendoza is ordered to pay respondent

Beth David the amount of P55,850 with interest at 6% per annum from 17
April 1997 until finality of this Decision and 12% per annum thereafter until
full payment. Beth David is ordered to deliver to Teresita B. Mendoza the
three sets of furniture Mendoza ordered upon her payment of the balance of
the purchase price with interest.