Case Digest (G.R. No. 50147) Core Legal Reasoning
Core Legal Reasoning
Facts:
In Luis Ma. Araneta v. Hon. Hermogenes Concepcion and Emma Benitez Araneta (G.R. No. L-9667, July 31, 1956), petitioner Luis Ma. Araneta sought legal separation from his wife Emma Benitez Araneta on the ground of adultery. After issues were joined, the wife filed an omnibus petition for: (1) custody of their three minor children; (2) a ₱5,000 monthly allowance for her and the children; (3) return of her passport; (4) an injunction preventing petitioner’s agents from molesting her; and (5) payment of her attorney’s fees. Both parties submitted affidavits and documentary evidence, but the trial court refused to hear any evidence, invoking Article 103 of the Civil Code’s six-month cooling-off period and interpreting it as prohibiting all proceedings—including ancillary matters—until after six months from filing. Without taking testimony, the court granted custody to the wife, ordered a monthly support of ₱2,300 plus ₱300 for housing and ₱2,000 for attorney’s fees. Petitioner’s moti Case Digest (G.R. No. 50147) Expanded Legal Reasoning
Expanded Legal Reasoning
Facts:
- Background and pleadings
- Petitioner-husband Luis Ma. Araneta filed an action for legal separation against his wife, respondent Emma Benitez Araneta, on the ground of adultery in the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch VI (Judge Hermogenes Concepcion).
- After issues were joined, the wife filed an omnibus petition seeking:
- Custody of their three minor children.
- Monthly support of P5,000 for herself and the children.
- Return of her passport.
- An injunction to prevent petitioner’s “hirelings” from harassing and molesting her.
- Attorney’s fees to be paid by petitioner.
- Oppositions and allegations
- Petitioner opposed, denying misconduct attributed to him and asserting:
- The wife had abandoned the children and was unfit for custody due to alleged adultery, emotional instability, and inability to provide proper maternal care and education.
- Conjugal properties were valued at only P80,000 (not P1,000,000 as alleged by the wife).
- He did not take her passport and did not vex or harass her.
- She was not entitled to support because of her infidelity and because she was able to support herself.
- Petitioner requested that the court require the parties to present evidence on the omnibus petition before resolving custody and support.
- Both parties submitted affidavits and documents. Petitioner relied, among others, on letters alleged to support the adultery charge.
- Trial court’s orders and reasoning
- Without receiving testimonial evidence, the trial court resolved the omnibus petition and:
- Granted custody of the children to the wife.
- Awarded support pendente lite of P2,300 monthly for the wife and children.
- Granted P300 monthly for a house.
- Awarded P2,000 as attorney’s fees.
- The court denied reconsideration and refused to receive evidence, invoking Article 103 of the Civil Code: “An action for legal separation shall in no case be tried before six months shall have elapsed since the filing of the petition.”
- The court interpreted Article 103 as:
- A mandatory bar to the introduction of any evidence within six months, whether on the merits or on incidents.
- Requiring preservation of the family and status quo (the “cooling-off” policy), including assumptions that:
- The wife is the custodian of the children by Filipino family tradition.
- The court should ignore alleged adultery or cruelty during this period.
- The family is a “petite corporation,” with the father as administrator and the mother as custodian of the home and children.
- Proceedings in the Supreme Court
- Petitioner instituted a petition for certiorari and mandamus assailing the trial court’s order and seeking to compel the reception of evidence on the omnibus petition.
- The Supreme Court issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the trial court’s order.
- Although more than six months had elapsed by the time of decision, the Court resolved to clarify the proper scope of Article 103 relative to custody and support pendente lite.
Issues:
- Whether Article 103 of the Civil Code bars the reception of evidence within six months from the filing of a legal separation petition, not only on the merits but also on incidental matters such as custody and support pendente lite.
- Whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion by granting custody and support pendente lite without receiving evidence and by relying on assumptions about “status quo” and family customs.
- Whether allegations pertinent to adultery and abandonment may be considered on interlocutory relief (custody and support pendente lite) without violating the Article 103 cooling-off policy.
- Whether the trial court’s awards for support and attorney’s fees pendente lite, issued without evidentiary basis, can stand.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)