Case Summary (G.R. No. L-9667)
Key Dates
- Filing of legal separation petition: Approximately six months prior to July 31, 1956.
- Trial court’s omnibus order: Issued before July 31, 1956.
- Supreme Court decision: July 31, 1956.
Applicable Law
- 1935 Philippine Constitution (governing familial relations at the time).
- Civil Code of the Philippines:
• Article 103 – Mandatory six-month cooling-off period before trying a legal separation case.
• Article 105 – Authority to determine pendente lite custody, support, and alimony according to circumstances.
Procedural Background
Petitioner filed for legal separation on the ground of adultery. After issues were joined, respondent filed an omnibus petition seeking:
- Custody of their three minor children;
- Monthly support of ₱5,000 for herself and the children;
- Return of her passport;
- Injunction against petitioner’s alleged harassment;
- Payment of her attorney’s fees.
Petitioner opposed, denying misconduct, alleging respondent’s abandonment and adultery, contesting the value of conjugal assets, and disputing entitlement to support and attorney’s fees. Both parties submitted affidavits and documents.
Trial Court’s Ruling and Reasoning
The trial court granted respondent custody of the children, ₱2,300 monthly support (including ₱300 for housing), and ₱2,000 attorney’s fees. It refused to admit further evidence, invoking Article 103’s six-month prohibition on trying a separation case. The court construed “trying” broadly to bar introduction of any evidence on merits or incidents, reasoning that all steps within six months must favor reconciliation and restoration of the family’s status quo.
Issues on Certiorari
Petitioner sought certiorari and mandamus to compel the trial court to receive evidence on custody and support pendente lite before the six-month period elapsed. A preliminary injunction was granted against enforcing the trial court’s order.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
Cooling-Off Policy vs. Interim Relief
• Article 103’s six-month bar aims to foster reconciliation by postponing trial on the merits.
• This policy does not override Article 105’s mandate to determine pendente lite custody and support “according to the circumstances.”Harmonious Interpretation of Civil Code Provisions
• All statutory provisions must be reconciled to effect the legislature’s general intent.
• Denying evidence on custody and support—issues collateral to the separation’s merits—would cause “rank injustice.”Necessity of Evidence for Custody and Support
• The court must consi
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-9667)
Parties and Nature of the Action
- Petitioner: Luis Ma. Araneta, husband, seeks legal separation on ground of adultery.
- Respondent: Emma Benitez Araneta, wife, opposes separation and files omnibus petition.
- Respondent: Hon. Hermogenes Concepcion, trial judge of CFI Manila, Branch VI.
- Omnibus petition: custody of three minor children; monthly support of ₱5,000 for wife and children; return of wife’s passport; injunction against harassment; payment of wife’s attorney’s fees.
Factual Background
- Marriage produced three minor children.
- Petitioner alleges wife abandoned children and committed adultery.
- Wife asserts conjugal assets worth one million pesos; petitioner values them at ₱80,000.
- Wife claims passport was taken and that petitioner’s agents harassed her.
- Both sides submit affidavits and documentary evidence supporting their respective contentions.
Procedural History
- Issues on separation joined; wife’s omnibus petition filed thereafter.
- Petitioner moved to require presentation of evidence on custody and support.
- Trial judge granted omnibus petition: awarded wife custody, ₱2,300 monthly support, ₱300 for housing, ₱2,000 attorney’s fees.
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration denied.
- Petitioner filed petition for certiorari and mandamus to compel evidentiary hearing; preliminary injunction granted by this Court.