Fanlo de Peyer v. Peyer
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiffs, Teresa Fanlo de Peyer and her three daughters, filed a complaint against the defendant husband for alimony, counsel's fees, confirmation of custody of the children, redemption of jewels, delivery of a Buick automobile, rental for its use, and damages. Procedural History: The lower court rendered judgment ordering the defendant to pay monthly support, attorney's fees, return the Buick automobile, and confirmed the custody of the children with the plaintiff wife. The defendant appealed. The Petition: The defendant husband appealed the lower court's decision, assigning eight errors. The primary contention revolved around whether the plaintiff wife's alleged attempts against his life relieved him of the obligation to support her, based on provisions of the Civil Code regarding disinheritance.
Issue(s)
Whether the plaintiff wife's alleged attempts against the defendant husband's life on June 19, 1942, and June 1, 1945, constitute grounds for disinheritance and relieve the defendant of his obligation to support his wife. Whether the lower court erred in confirming the custody of the minor daughters with the plaintiff wife. Whether the award of P1,500 for attorney's fees is justified and legally tenable. Whether the lower court erred in ordering the return of the Buick automobile to the plaintiff wife.
Ruling
The judgment of the lower court is modified with the exclusion of plaintiff Alice Peyer and affirmed in all other respects, with costs against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged attempts against the defendant husband's life: The Court found the evidence regarding the June 19, 1942 incident contradictory and inclined to believe that no attempt against life was made. Even if an attempt occurred, the Court considered that a reconciliation might have taken place as they continued to live together. For the June 1, 1945 incident, while the preponderance of evidence favored the defendant, the majority of the Court agreed with the lower court that the evidence did not establish intent to kill, but rather that the wife armed herself with a knife for self-protection and to secure necessities for herself and her daughters, given the ongoing disputes over support. Therefore, these incidents did not constitute sufficient grounds for disinheritance to relieve the husband of his support obligation. On the custody of the minor daughters: The Court found the defendant's grounds for deeming the mother unfit (alleged attempts against his life and irregular sleeping schedules of the children) insufficient. The difficulties during enemy occupation could explain the lack of schooling, and the defendant's inaction to seek custody prior to the suit suggested his claims were not serious. Thus, the mother's custody was confirmed. On attorney's fees: The Court held that the appellant's liability to pay attorney's fees was not based on a contractual relation but was an incidental expense in enforcing the legal right to support, similar to judicial costs. Even if considered contractual, it remained obligatory. No written agreement was necessary, and the lower court was in a good position to appraise the reasonable amount awarded, which was not shown to be exorbitant. On the ownership of the Buick automobile: The Court found that the Buick automobile belonged to the conjugal partnership, not solely to the plaintiff wife as a gift. However, it reasoned that the defendant acquired two cars, one for business and one for family use, making it reasonable for the Buick to be possessed by the plaintiffs. The Court distinguished between ownership and use/possession, affirming the lower court's pronouncement regarding the plaintiff's entitlement to the use and possession of the car, though not its sole ownership.
Main Doctrine
The obligation to support may cease if the recipient commits acts constituting sufficient grounds for disinheritance, such as an attempt against the life of the spouse. However, mere accusations without sufficient proof, or actions taken in self-defense or to protect necessities, may not necessarily lead to disinheritance or cessation of support.