Thus the determination of the custody and alimony should be given effect and force provided it does not go to the extent of violating the policy of the cooling off period. That is, evidence not affecting the cause of the separation, like the actual custody of the children, the
means conducive to their welfare and convenience during the pendency of the case, these should be allowed that the court may determine which is best for their custody. LUCY SOMOSA-RAMOS vs. THE HONORABLE CIPRIANO VAMENTA, JR. G.R. No. L-34132 July 29, 1972 Facts: On June 18, 1971, petitioner filed in the sala of respondent Judge against respondent Clemente Ramos for legal separation, on concubinage on the respondent's part and an attempt by him against her life being alleged. She likewise sought the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction for the return to her of what she claimed to be her paraphernal and exclusive property, then under the administration and management of respondent Clemente Ramos. There was an opposition to the hearing of such a motion based on Article 103 of the Civil Code. Thereafter, petitioner received an order of respondent Judge granting the motion of respondent Ramos to suspend the hearing of the petition for a writ of mandatory preliminary injunction. That is the order complained of in this petition for certiorari. Issue: Whether or not Article 103 of the Civil Code prohibiting the hearing of an action for legal separation before the lapse of six months from the filing of the petition, would likewise preclude the court from acting on a motion for preliminary mandatory injunction applied for as an ancillary remedy to such a suit. Ruling: After a careful consideration of the legal question presented, it is the holding of this Court that Article 103 the Civil Code is not an absolute bar to the hearing motion for preliminary injunction prior to the expiration of the six-month period.The court where the action is pending according to Article 103 is to remain passive. It must let the parties alone in the meanwhile. It is precluded from hearing the suit. There is then some plausibility for the view of the lower court that an ancillary motion such as one for preliminary mandatory injunction is not to be acted on. If it were otherwise, there would be a failure to abide by the literal language of such codal provision. That the law, however, remains cognizant of the need in certain cases for judicial power to assert itself are discernible from what is set forth in the following article. It reads thus: "After the filing of the petition for legal separation, the spouse shall be entitled to live separately from each other and manage their respective property. The husband shall continue to manage the conjugal partnership property but if the court deems it proper, it may appoint another to manage said property, in which case the administrator shall have the same rights and duties as a guardian and shall not be allowed to dispose of the income or of the capital except in accordance with the orders of the court."There would appear to be then recognition that the question of management
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 22 pages?
- Fall '11
- Law, Legal separation