This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-06-30 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| As regards the means upon which the deprivation took effect, it is not necessary that the respondent must demonstrate that the taking was done with force, intimidation threat, strategy or stealth. The Supreme Court, in Bañes v. Lutheran Church in the Philippines,[30] explained:In order to constitute force that would justify a forcible entry case, the trespasser does not have to institute a state of war. The act of going to the property and excluding the lawful possessor therefrom necessarily implies the exertion of force over the property which is all that is necessary and sufficient to show that the action is based on the provisions of Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.[31] | |||||
|
2007-03-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In Bañes v. Lutheran Church in the Philippines,[23] we reiterated that the law of the case is the opinion delivered on a former appeal. It applies to an established rule that when an appellate court passes on a question and remands the case to the lower court for further proceedings, the question there settled becomes the law of the case upon subsequent appeal. As a rule, a decision on a prior appeal of the same case is held to be the law of the case whether that question is right or wrong, the remedy of the party deeming himself aggrieved being to seek a rehearing.[24] | |||||