PRO-GUARD SECURITY SERVICES CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.

TORMIL possession of the property but his possession eventually becomes unlawful
REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondent. GR No. 176341 upon the termination or expiration of his right to possess. In other words, the
July 7, 2014 entry is legal but the possession thereafter became illegal. Additionally, the
DOCTRINE Rules of Court requires the filing of such action within a year the withholding
A person who occupies the land of another at the latters tolerance or of possession meaning that if the dispossession has not lasted for more than
permission, without any contract between them, is necessarily bound by an one year, an ejectment proceeding, is proper.
implied promise that he will vacate upon demand, failing which a summary
action for ejectment is the proper remedy against him. Here, from the moment Pro-guard started to occupy the unit in March 1994
up to November 15, 1998, the right of Pro-Guard to possess the premises was
FACTS not challenged. It was only after Tormil prevailed over Manuel in its
Manuel Torres assigned to respondent Tormil Realty and Devt. Corp ownership of the same that it terminated Pro-Guards right to possess the
three parcels of land located in Pasay City and all the improvements unit was occupying through a letter to vacate dated Nov. 16, 1998. Hence, it
thereon in exchange for shares of stock in the said corporation. is only from that point Tormil is considered to have withdrawn its tolerance
Despite the assignment, however, title to the real properties of Pro-Guards occupation. Conversely, Pro-guards possession became
remained in the Registry of Deeds nor provided Tormil the unlawful at that same moment. This is supported by the allegation in the
necessary documents to have the titles over the properties complaint by the allegation in the complaint for ejectment that Tormil
transferred in its name. Later, Manuel unilaterally revoked the initiated the same not because of nonpayment of rentals, but because of
transaction. withdrawal of tolerance.
Manuel, together with Edgardo Pabalan, established Torres Pabalan
Realty Inc. (Torres-Pabalan). As part of his capital contribution, Tolerance is defined as the act or practice of permitting or enduring
Manuel assigned the same aforesaid parcels of land to Torres- something not wholly approved of. With regard to effects of withdrawal of
Pabalan. tolerance: A person who occupies the land of another at the latter tolerance
In the meantime, construction of the Torres building on the subject or permission, without any contract between them, is necessarily bound by
real porperties was completed and rented out. Edgardo, then the an implied promise that he will vacate upon demand, failing which a summary
General Manager and Administrator of Tormil acted as the building action for ejectment is the proper remedy against him. His status is analogous
administrator of Tormil occupied the 2nd flr and set up a law office. to that of a lessee or tenant whose term of lease has expired but whose
Tormil filed a case before the SEC to compel Manuel to fulfill his occupancy continued by tolerance of the owner. In such a case, the date of
obligation by turning over the documents necessary to effect the unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession is to be counted from the
registration and transfer of title in its name as assigned by Manuel. date of the demand to vacate.
SEC rendered judgment in favor of Tormil. SEC en banc affirmed.
Manuel filed an appeal to CA. During the pendency thereof, Pro-
Guard entered into an agreement with Edgardo in March 1994 for
the rent of a unit in the 3rd floor of Torres Building. As payment, Pro-
Guard will provide security services to Torres-Pabalan.
Tormil sent letters to the law office and Pro-Guard asking them to
validate their possession and enter into a lease contract with
Tormil.
Since these letters were ignored, Tormil sent them separate
demands to vacate the premises and pay the monthly rental of
P20,000 from the time of their occupation until the same are
actually turned over to Tormil.
These efforts were unheeded, Tormil then filed ejectment suits
against Edgardo Pabalan, Augustus and Pro-Guard. MeTC adjudged
Tormils right to possess the property. It brushed aside the claim
that Torres Pabalan owns the building since its SEC Certificate of
Registration was already cancelled.
MeTC concluded that their possession became unlawful when
Tormil decided to assert its right of ownership over the building
after the ruling in the SEC case was upheld with finality by this
Court. MeTC ordered Edgardo and Augustus to vacate the unit they
possessed. It found that the defendants occupancy of the units is
only upon Tormils tolerance.
Tormil appealed to RTC. RTC affirmed in TOTO.
On appeal, CA adjudged Tormil to have sufficiently proven its case
for unlawful detainer and affirmed RTC decision. One aspect which
Edgardo, Augustus and Pro-Guard objected to was the order for
them to pay P20,000 monthly rental and the reckoning point of
payment. Reckoning the payment from the date of Tormils notice
to vacate.

ISSUE/S
W/N reckoning point of payment of rentals is from the demand to vacate not
from the time it began occupying the disputed porperties?

RULING
Pro-Guard no longer impugns the uniform rulings of the MeTC, RTC and CA
on the right of Tormil to possess the subject premises.

In unlawful detainer cases, the defendant is necessarily in prior lawful