This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2005-03-18 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It is worthy of note that petitioners never denied the existence, authenticity and due execution of the 10 February 1978 Pagpapahayag as they merely objected to the purpose of its presentation.[36] As held by the appellate court: Neither refutation nor denial of the existence of such document exist in the records of the case at bar. Particularly, Feliza did not even raise any objection as to the due execution and authenticity of the "Pagpapahayag" dated 10 February 1978. In relation thereto, it is worthy to note that an objection as to the purpose of its presentation is not tantamount to an objection as to the authenticity and due execution of the document. In view of the absence of such objection, the GOMEZES as signatories thereto, are deemed bound by the stipulations therein.[37] "A trust … is sacred and inviolable. The courts have therefore shielded fiduciary relations against every manner of chicanery or detestable design cloaked by legal technicalities."[38] Considering this pronouncement of the Supreme Court and the betrayal by petitioners of the provisions of the Pagpapahayag creating the trust in this case, the Court of Appeals rightly ordered the reconveyance of the disputed property to respondents and the cancellation of TCT No. 21885. | |||||