J. BENTON CLAUSEN, RECURRENTE, CONTRA ISABEL CABRERA, RECURRIDA.

Clausen versus Cabrera

The Case

This is the case of Clausen versus Cabrera, a husband against his wife, decided by the Supreme Court in June 1941. The husband, J. Benton Clausen, appealed by certiorari from a judgment of the Court of Appeals ordering him to pay his wife, Isabel Cabrera, a monthly support of 100 pesos, plus an equal amount as attorney's fees. The case matters because it settles two enduring rules: a husband's obligation to give support to a wife who is blameless is unquestionable, and an appellate court cannot award attorney's fees that the trial court never granted when the party who would receive them did not herself appeal.

Procedural History

The wife brought the action in the Court of First Instance of Manila, which rendered judgment in her favor but did not award her attorney's fees. The case went up to the Court of Appeals, which, in a decision promulgated on 26 September 1939, condemned the husband to pay 100 pesos monthly as support, plus another 100 pesos for attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals later issued a resolution dated 29 January 1940, clarifying the facts and affirming the amount. The husband then came to the Supreme Court by a petition for certiorari to review that judgment.

Facts

The spouses married in Surigao in April 1902 and had six children. They lived together until 1918, when, because of conjugal disagreements, the wife left the conjugal home, taking the minor children with her. This led to a habeas corpus proceeding in the Court of First Instance of Manila, which ordered that the minor children be placed in the custody of the husband.

Because of that proceeding, the wife returned to live with her husband in 1918. But the disagreements never ceased: she was subjected to vexations and to ill treatment in word and in deed by her husband. In 1930, he abandoned his wife and children and left the conjugal home.

The spouses then entered into a contract to live separately, executed on 10 May 1930. Reciting incompatibility of character, they agreed on an extrajudicial separation, and the husband bound himself to maintain his wife and the children living with her by paying a monthly pension of 200 pesos. It was stipulated, however, that if a daughter named Maria should marry, the pension would be reduced to 150 pesos. The Court of Appeals found that the wife was a woman of advanced age, in delicate health, and without any property, while the husband had the means to pay, having a daily income of 15 pesos.

Issues

• Whether or not the husband is obliged to give support to his wife, the herein respondent.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals could award attorney's fees to the wife when the trial court had not granted them and she did not appeal from its judgment.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory provision in full. It rests on the general obligation of support between spouses and on the settled rule that a party who does not appeal cannot obtain from the appellate court more than the trial court awarded. The Court states the governing principle in its own words:

Con vista de estos hechos, entendemos que la obligacion del recurrente a dar alimentos a la recurrida es incuestionable.

This means that, on the facts found, the husband's obligation to give support to his wife is unquestionable.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the husband's obligation to support his wife is unquestionable. The wife was of advanced age, in delicate health, and without property, while the husband had a daily income of 15 pesos. The Court found the amount fixed by the Court of Appeals, as amended by its resolution, to be just and equitable, and so there was no ground to revoke the judgment on that score.

On the second issue, the Court held that the Court of Appeals had no power to award attorney's fees. Such fees had not been adjudged to the wife by the Court of First Instance, and she did not appeal from that court's judgment. The Court put the reason thus:

El Tribunal de Apelacion, por tanto, no tenia facultad para adjudicarla tales honorarios.

That is, the Court of Appeals therefore had no faculty to award her such fees. The judgment was accordingly modified only by eliminating the 100 pesos for attorney's fees, and confirmed in all other respects.

Doctrine

A husband is bound to give support to his wife, and that obligation is unquestionable where the wife is blameless, of advanced age, in delicate health, and without property, and the husband has the means to pay. Support fixed by the appellate court will be sustained where it is just and equitable.

An appellate court cannot award attorney's fees that the trial court did not grant, where the party in whose favor the award would be made did not appeal from the trial court's judgment. A party who does not appeal cannot obtain from the appellate court relief beyond what the trial court gave.

Disposition

The husband's appeal partly succeeded: the Supreme Court modified the judgment by deleting the award of 100 pesos for attorney's fees, confirmed it in all other respects, and taxed the costs of both instances against the husband.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: a husband's obligation to support his wife is unquestionable, but an appellate court cannot award attorney's fees the trial court never granted when the wife did not appeal. Examiners use this case to test the rule that a party who does not appeal cannot secure additional relief on review.