Mendoza Vs David d3z1m

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 itted 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.