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.
'ubseuently, 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 dgardo for the lease of a unit at the 3 rd 9oor of the building. +n e#change for the rental payments, "ro* -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. 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 reuires 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.
