Short answer. Yes, as a general rule. A contract of sale may be made in writing, by word of mouth, partly in writing and partly by word of mouth, or inferred from conduct — subject to the Statute of Frauds and any other applicable statute that may require a particular form for certain sales.
What the law says
a contract of sale may be made in writing, or by word of mouth, or partly in writing and partly by word of mouth, or may be inferred from the conduct of the parties.
Civil Code, Article 1483 — Form of a Sale. Read the full provision →
A sale does not need to be written to exist
Article 1483 states plainly that "a contract of sale may be made in writing, or by word of mouth, or partly in writing and partly by word of mouth, or may be inferred from the conduct of the parties." This lists four distinct ways a sale can come into being, and a purely oral agreement — word of mouth, with nothing written down — is expressly one of them. So the absence of a written document does not, by itself, mean there is no valid sale.
A sale can even be inferred without express words
The article goes further than oral agreements: a sale "may be inferred from the conduct of the parties." This means the law recognizes a contract of sale can come about through how the parties actually behaved toward each other — one delivering goods, the other paying or accepting them — even without either side stating in words that they were agreeing to buy and sell. Conduct consistent with a sale can itself be the basis for finding one exists.
The qualification that opens the article
This flexibility is not unlimited. Article 1483 begins with the phrase "subject to the provisions of the Statute of Frauds and of any other applicable statute." So while the general rule allows a sale to be oral, that general rule yields wherever the Statute of Frauds or some other specific statute requires a particular form for a particular kind of sale. The article's own text signals that form requirements can exist elsewhere in the law and take precedence over the default flexibility it describes.
What this means for someone relying on a verbal deal
As a general proposition, a verbal agreement to buy or sell something is not automatically unenforceable just because nothing was put in writing. Whether a particular verbal sale is enforceable in practice, however, depends on whether it falls within one of the categories the Statute of Frauds or another statute singles out for a required form — a question this article flags but does not itself resolve, since it points to those other provisions rather than listing them here.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Lorenzo Willy, substituted by his heirs, namely: Felicidad D. Willy, Betty Willy Cadangen, Tony, G.R. No. 207051, December 1, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Province of Cebu vs. Heirs of Rufina Morales, et al, G.R. No. 170115, February 19, 2008 — read the decision on LawPhil →