Case Digest (G.R. No. L-145)
Facts:
Teresa Fanlo de Peyer et al. v. R. C. Peyer, G.R. No. L-145. September 07, 1946, the Supreme Court Second Division, Perfecto, J., writing for the Court.
On May 10, 1945, Teresa Fanlo de Peyer (plaintiff-appellee) and her three daughters filed a complaint for alimony against her husband, R. C. Peyer (defendant-appellant), seeking P500 monthly support from February 1945, counsel fees, confirmation of custody of the children, return of a Buick automobile (or rental value), and damages of P10,000. The trial court rendered judgment on September 28, 1945, ordering defendant to pay P350 monthly support beginning March 1, 1945, P1,500 for plaintiffs’ counsel fees, confirming custody of the two younger daughters with Mrs. Peyer, ordering return of the Buick (or repair costs), dismissing defendant’s cross-claims, and making no special pronouncement as to costs.
Defendant appealed, assigning eight errors. He admitted support obligations for two daughters but denied obligations to support his wife and eldest daughter (Alice), though Alice’s claim was later dismissed by agreement because she had married in March 1946. Central to the appeal was whether Mrs. Peyer had twice attempted to take her husband’s life (June 19, 1942, and June 1, 1945), since an attempt on the spouse’s life is a ground for disinheriting a spouse and, argued appellant, would terminate support obligations under Civil Code provisions.
At trial, testimony conflicted about the June 19, 1942 incident: defendant testified that Mrs. Peyer pursued him with a knife and struck the table with it; plaintiff admitted hitting the table but denied striking him and was uncertain whether she pursued him. On the June 1, 1945 incident several witnesses (Jesus Santiago, Jesus P. Sans, Zoilo Tasio) testified that Mrs. Peyer attempted to stab Mr. Peyer and was disarmed; plaintiff testified she took a kitchen knife only after receiving a blow and acted defensively to repel further violence and to protect foodstuffs in the basement.
The trial court found that the 1942 incident did not conclusively establish an attempt on appellant’s life and that some form of reconciliation followed; as to the 1945 incident the trial court concluded that plaintiff did not intend to kill but acted to protect goods and herself. The trial court also awarded attorney’s fees (P1,500) and ordered return/possession of the Buick to plaintiffs. The defendant challenged the custody award, the attorney’s fees, the ownership of the Buick, and sought recovery of P2,830 for goods allegedly belonging to the Philippine Manufacturing Company taken by plaintiff from the basement. The trial court denied the recovery for goods for lack of proof.
On appeal to the Supreme Court (by ordinary appeal), the Court affirmed the trial cou...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did plaintiff Teresa Fanlo de Peyer commit attempts against her husband’s life on June 19, 1942 and June 1, 1945, such that defendant is relieved from his support obligations under Article 152(4) and Article 855(4) of the Civil Code?
- Was the trial court correct in confirming custody of the minor daughters with the mother?
- Was the award of P1,500 to plaintiffs’ counsel proper?
- Should the trial court have held that appellant is the owner of the Buick automobile and denied plaintiffs’ possession/use?
- Is defendant entitled to recover P2,830 for goods...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)