Facts:

The case revolves around Luis Ma. Araneta, the petitioner, and Emma Benitez Araneta, his wife, who is one of the respondents. The legal proceedings began with a petition filed by Luis for legal separation against Emma, citing adultery as the primary ground. Following the initiation of legal proceedings, Emma filed an omnibus petition seeking custody of their three minor children, a monthly support of P5,000 for herself and her children, the return of her passport, and an order to restrain Luis from harassing her. Emma's petition included supporting affidavits detailing her claims, while Luis countered by denying all allegations of misconduct, asserting that Emma had abandoned their children and that the conjugal assets were valued at only P80,000, contradicting Emma's claim of a value of one million pesos. He further contended that due to her infidelity and abandonment, Emma was unfit to care for the children and should not receive support or attorney's fees. The cas

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Petitioner, Luis Ma. Araneta, filed a legal separation action against his wife, Emma Benitez Araneta (one of the respondents), on the ground of adultery.
• Subsequent to the joining of issues in the legal separation case, the respondent (defendant) initiated an omnibus petition seeking several ancillary reliefs.

Reliefs Sought in the Omnibus Petition

• Custody of their three minor children was sought by the respondent.
• A monthly support allowance was claimed for herself and the children, initially requested at P5,000.
• The respondent sought the return of her passport.
• An injunction was prayed to enjoin the petitioner from having his hirelings harass or molest her.
• Payment for the fees of her attorney was also demanded.

Contentions and Allegations of the Parties

• The respondent’s petition was supported by her affidavit and various documents, asserting acts of misconduct by the petitioner.
• The petitioner opposed the omnibus petition, denying the misconduct and alleging that:
• The respondent had abandoned their children and the conjugal dwelling.
• The assets (conjugal properties) were valued far lower (P80,000) than claimed, not amounting to one million pesos as alleged by the respondent.
• There was no taking of her passport nor any vexatious behavior committed by him.
• The respondent, by her alleged infidelity and unstable emotional conduct, was unfit to secure the custody and welfare of the children.
• The petitioner contended that evidence should be allowed to prove disputed issues regarding custody, support, and other allegations.

Trial Judge’s Decision

• The lower court, represented by Judge Hermogenes Concepcion, resolved the omnibus petition by:
• Granting custody of the children to the respondent.
• Fixing a monthly support allowance of P2,300 for the respondent and the children.
• Awarding an additional P300 for housing and P2,000 for attorney’s fees.
• The judge declined to allow the presentation of further evidence on these issues, basing the decision on the mandatory cooling-off period prescribed in Article 103 of the Civil Code.

Basis for Excluding New Evidence

• Article 103 of the Civil Code mandates that a legal separation case cannot be tried or have evidence introduced before six months have elapsed since the filing of the petition.
• The trial judge emphasized that the intent of the statute was to foster reconciliation between the spouses by preserving the family status quo and avoiding actions that might further inflame passions.

Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus

• Upon the judge’s refusal to revisit his decision regarding evidence submission, the petitioner elevated the matter.
• He sought a writ of certiorari against the lower court’s order and a mandamus directing the judge to require presentation of evidence prior to deciding on the petition’s reliefs.

Issue:

• Whether the trial judge’s reliance on Article 103 of the Civil Code to exclude evidence on matters related to custody and alimony pendente lite within the six-month cooling-off period was proper.
• Whether evidence pertaining to issues such as custody of the children, alleged adultery, abandonment of the conjugal dwelling, and support should be allowed despite the statutory prohibition aimed at promoting reconciliation.
• The extent to which the statutory intent of a cooling-off period should influence the resolution of ancillary issues that directly affect the welfare of the minor children and the financial support during the pendency of the case.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)