Short answer. Often yes. A contract infringing the Statute of Frauds is unenforceable rather than void, and the defect can be cured. Article 1405 ratifies it where a party fails to object to oral evidence proving the agreement, or where he has accepted a benefit under it. Both happen easily.

What the law says

Contracts infringing the Statute of Frauds

Civil Code, Article 1405 — Ratification Under the Statute of Frauds. Read the full provision →

What the law says

are ratified by the failure to object to the presentation of oral evidence to prove the same, or by the acceptance of benefit under them.

Civil Code, Article 1405 — Ratification Under the Statute of Frauds. Read the full provision →

Unenforceable is a much weaker defect than void

The Statute of Frauds requires certain agreements to be in writing, and people usually assume that an oral one of that kind simply does not count. That is not what the Civil Code says. Such a contract is unenforceable, which means it exists and is perfectly valid between the parties but a court will not compel performance if the writing requirement is properly raised. The distinction matters because unenforceability can be cured, while nullity cannot. It is also a personal defence: it has to be invoked by the party entitled to it, at the right moment, or it is gone.

Two ways the defence is lost

Article 1405 supplies both. Contracts infringing the Statute of Frauds are ratified by the failure to object to the presentation of oral evidence to prove the same, or by the acceptance of benefit under them. The first route is procedural — if the other party testifies to the oral agreement and nobody objects, the contract has been ratified by that silence and cannot be attacked afterwards. The second is factual and catches far more people: a party who has taken delivery, received payment, occupied the property or otherwise enjoyed a benefit under the agreement can no longer say it was never written down.

The requirement is about proof, not about validity

This fits the Code's general position on form. Article 1356 makes contracts obligatory in whatever form they were entered into, provided the essential requisites are present, while acknowledging that where the law requires a form for validity, for enforceability or for proof, the requirement is absolute. The Statute of Frauds belongs to that middle category. And where the law does require a particular form, Article 1357 lets a party compel the other to observe it once the contract has been perfected — so the answer to a missing document is often to obtain one, not to abandon the claim.

What matters if you are on either side of this

If you are being sued on an oral agreement and want to rely on the writing requirement, the objection has to be raised properly and early, and you must be careful not to accept any further benefit under the contract in the meantime. If you are the one claiming payment, build the case out of conduct: receipts, deposits, delivery records, messages confirming figures, and anything showing the other side took what it bargained for. Those documents usually matter more than the absence of a signed contract.

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.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.