G.R. No. L-145; September 7, 1946
TERESA FANLO DE PEYER, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. R.C. PEYER, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On May 10, 1945, Teresa Fanlo de Peyer and her three daughters filed a complaint against her husband, R.C. Peyer, for alimony. The complaint sought a monthly allowance of P500 from February 1945, attorney’s fees, confirmation of her custody of the children, P3,000 to redeem her jewels, delivery of a Buick automobile and rental for its use, and P10,000 in damages. The lower court rendered judgment on September 28, 1945, ordering the defendant to pay P350 monthly support from March 1, 1945, P1,500 in attorney’s fees, confirming the wife’s custody of the daughters, and ordering the return of the Buick sedan to the wife. The defendant appealed, assigning eight errors. During the appeal, the parties agreed to dismiss the case concerning the eldest daughter, Alice Peyer, as she had married in March 1946. The main issue centered on whether Teresa Fanlo had attempted against her husband’s life on June 19, 1942, and June 1, 1945, which would relieve the husband of his support obligation under the Civil Code. The defendant testified about the 1942 incident involving a knife, and witnesses testified about the 1945 incident where the wife allegedly tried to stab him. The wife gave contradicting testimony, stating she acted in self-protection or to repel him. The lower court found the evidence did not establish an intent to kill. The defendant also challenged the custody award, attorney’s fees, and the order to return the Buick car.

ISSUE

1. Whether Teresa Fanlo de Peyer attempted against the life of her husband, R.C. Peyer, thereby relieving him of his obligation to provide support under the Civil Code.
2. Whether the lower court correctly confirmed the wife’s custody of the minor daughters.
3. Whether the award of P1,500 for attorney’s fees was proper.
4. Whether the lower court correctly ordered the return of the Buick sedan to the wife.

RULING

1. On the Attempts Against Life: The Court, with the majority agreeing with the lower court, held that the evidence did not establish that the wife intended to kill her husband. Regarding the 1942 incident, the Court found the testimonies contradictory and was inclined to believe no attempt occurred, noting a sort of reconciliation afterwards as they continued living together. Regarding the 1945 incident, the majority agreed with the lower court that the wife armed herself with a knife to prevent the husband and his laborers from taking foodstuffs from the conjugal home and to secure necessities for herself and her daughters, acting in a form of self-protection. Thus, the husband was not relieved of his support obligation.
2. On Custody: The Court affirmed the lower court’s confirmation of the wife’s custody of the minor daughters, Elizabeth and Ruth. The alleged attempts against life were not proven, and the other grounds (Elizabeth not attending school since 1941 and late bedtimes) were insufficient to deem the mother unfit, especially given the difficulties during enemy occupation and the husband’s prior inaction regarding custody.
3. On Attorney’s Fees: The Court affirmed the award of P1,500 for attorney’s fees. The husband’s liability to pay these fees is not based on contract but is part of the indemnity for damages caused by his failure to fulfill his support obligation. The amount was deemed reasonable given the nature of the case and the legal services rendered.
4. On the Buick Sedan: The Court modified the lower court’s ruling. It found that the Buick car belonged to the conjugal partnership, not solely to the wife. Therefore, while the wife was entitled to its use and possession, the pronouncement of ownership in her favor was incorrect. The order for its return in good condition was sustained, but clarified as pertaining to possession and use, not ownership.
5. On Other Claims: The Court dismissed the defendant’s cross-claim for P2,830 for goods taken by the wife from the conjugal home, as the quantity and value were not proved, the goods might be conjugal assets, and any claim belonged to the company, not the defendant.
DISPOSITIVE:
The judgment of the lower court was modified by excluding plaintiff Alice Peyer and affirming the rest, with costs against the appellant. The custody and support orders were sustained, the attorney’s fees award was affirmed, and the order for the return of the Buick was upheld but clarified as concerning possession and use, not ownership.