PRO-GUARD SECURITY SERVICES CORPORATION V.

TORMIL REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION
GR NO. 176341 JULY 7, 2014

DOCTRINE:
 The date of unlawful
unlawful deprivation
deprivation or
or withholding
withholding of possession
possession is to be counted
counted from
from the date of the
the
demand to vacate.

FACTS:
Manuel Torres, assigned three (3) parcels of land to Tormil Realty & evelopment !orporation located
in "asay !ity and all improvements thereon in e#change for shares of stoc$ in the said corporation.
%owever, despite the assignment, title to the real properties remained in the name of Manuel Torres.
ater on Manuel Torres unilaterally revo$ed the assignment.

'ubseuently, Manuel Torres and dgardo "abalan established Torres*"abalan Realty +ncorporated. s
part of his capital contribution, Manuel Torres, assigned the three (3) parcels of land to Torres*"abalan
Realty +ncorporated. dgardo "alaban was then the -eneral Manager and dministrator of Tormil
Realty & evelopment !orporation and he later on resigned. +n /01, the construction of the Torres
2uilding on the land was completed and was rented out.

+n March /0, Tormil 4led a case with the '! to compel Manuel Torres to ful4l his obligation by
turning over the documents necessary to e5ect the registration and transfer of titles in the name of
the properties assigned to it by Manuel.

dgardo was the dministrator of Torres*"abalan Realty. %e then set up a law o6ce together with tty.
ugustus !esar 7ura on the 8 nd 9oor of the building. Torres building was later then declared for ta#
purposes.

'!, then made a decision in favour of Tormil which was later a6rmed by '! n2anc. Manuel
appealed to the !. uring the pendency thereof, "ro*-uard entered into a lease contract with
dgardo for the lease of a unit at the 3 rd 9oor of the building. +n e#change for the rental payments, "ro*
dgardo
-uard provided security services to Torres*"abalan.

 Then the !:s decision was

was released.
released. ! ruled in favour or Tormil.

 Tormil
 Tormil then sent letters to the
the law o6ce and "ro*-uard to settle their accounts
accounts with the
the previous
previous owner
and enter into new lease contracts with Tormil. 'ince Tormil:s letters were ignored, it sent demand
letters to vacate the premises and pay their rentals from the time they have occupied the said rented
units. 'ince, their letter was once again unheeded, Tormil 4led an e;ectment suit with the MeT! against
dgardo and ugustus and "ro*-uard.

 Tormil
 Tormil averred
averred that the occupanc
occupancy
y by defendants
defendants of units in
in Torres
Torres building
building was
was out of tolerance.
tolerance.

dgardo and ugustus disputed Tormil:s ownership of the parcels of land where the building stands
and asserted that Torres*"abalan
Torres*"abalan was the owner of the same. +t was also the onewho funded the
building:s construction. <nfortunately, its ta# declarations over the building were surreptitiously and
unlawfully
unlawfully cancelled on the sole basis of the '! !ase. "ro*-uard, for its part, claimed that it was
paying rentals to the owner, Torres*"abalan,
Torres*"abalan, in the form of security services provided to the latter. +t
li$ewise called attention to the fact that it was no longer in the premises as Tormil forcibly ousted it
therefrom.

MeT! ruled in favour of Tormil. RT! a6rmed MeT! ruling. ! li$ewise a6rmed the decision. ll the
courts have ruled that Tormil have su6ciently proved its entitlement to possession of the property.
=hat is left is the determination of the rec$oning point when "ro*guard and dgardo and ugustus will
pay the rentals.

ISSUE:
=hen is the rec$oning point of payment of the rentals, is it from the time of occupation of the property
or at the time of demand>

ELD:
 =hile indeed Tormil, as the victor in the unlawful detainer suit, is entitled to the fair rental
value for the use and occupation of the unit in the building, such compensation should not be rec$oned
from the time "ro*-uard began to occupy the same, but from the time of the demand to vacate.
+n unlawful detainer cases, the defendant is necessarily in prior lawful possession of the
property but his possession eventually becomes unlawful upon termination or e#piration of his right to
possess. +n other words, the entry is legal but the possession thereafter became illegal. dditionally,
the Rules of !ourt reuires the 4ling of such action within a year after the withholding of possession
meaning that ?if the dispossession has not lasted for more than one year, @thenA an e;ectment
proceeding (in this case unlawful detainer) is proper.
%ere, from the moment "ro*-uard started to occupy the unit in March //B up to Covember
1, //0, the right of "ro*-uard to possess the premises was not challenged. +t was only after Tormil
prevailed over Manuel in its ownership of the same that it terminated "ro*-uard:s right to possess the
unit it was occupying through a letter to vacate dated Covember D, //0. %ence, it is only from that
point that Tormil is considered to have withdrawn its tolerance of "ro*-uard:s occupation. !onversely,
"ro*-uard:s possession became unlawful at that same moment. This is supported by the allegation in
the complaint for e;ectment that Tormil initiated the same not because of non*payment of rentals, but
because of withdrawal of tolerance. Tolerance or ?@tAoleration is de4ned as Ethe act or practice of
permitting or enduring something not wholly approved of,F while tolerated acts are ?those which by
reason of neighborliness or familiarity, the owner of the property allows his neighbor or another person
to do on the propertyG they are generally those particular services or bene4ts which one:s property can
give to another without material in;ury or pre;udice to the owner, who permits them out of friendship
or courtesy.F

=ith regard to the e5ects of withdrawal of tolerance, it is settled thatH  person who occupies
the land of another at the latter:s tolerance or permission, without any contract between them, is
necessarily bound by an implied promise that he will vacate upon demand, failing which a summary
action for e;ectment is the proper remedy against him. %is status is analogous to that of a lessee or
tenant whose term of lease has e#pired but whose occupancy continued by tolerance of the owner.
+n such a case, the date of unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession is to be counted from the
date of the demand to vacate.

+ncidentally, Tormil mentioned that "ro*-uard is obliged to consign the payment of rentals. Ine
legal cause for consignation is when two or more persons claim the same right to collect. Jarious
claimants to a debtorKs payment must have the appearance of a right to collect such that the debtor
would have a reasonable doubt, not based on negligence, as to who is entitled to the payment.

 The dispute regarding the validity of ManuelKs assignment to Tonnil of the realties was pending
before the '!, Tormil did not claim to "ro*-uard that it is the true owner of the premises. +t neither
sought payment of rentals which it now claims "ro*-uard should have consigned during the pendency
of its suit against Manuel.

s such, from the viewpoint of "ro*-uard, the lease contract remained to be then between it
and Torres*"abalan.
 The latter was occupying and running the building, as evidenced by several ta# declarations in its
name which, while not conclusive proofs of ownership, nevertheless, are good indicia of possession in
the concept of owner.

Moreover, dgardo, who claimed to act on behalf of Torres*"abalan, administered the premises.
"ro*-uard is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of the commencement of the
relation of landlord and tenant between them.

"ro*-uard is ordered to pay reasonable and fair rentals beginning Cov. D, //0 up to the time
that the premises are fully vacated.