G.R. No. L-34132 July 29, 1972
LUCY SOMOSA-RAMOS, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE CIPRIANO VAMENTA, JR., Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental and CLEMEN G. RAMOS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Lucy Somosa-Ramos filed an action for legal separation against her husband, respondent Clemente G. Ramos, on grounds of concubinage and an attempt against her life. Simultaneously, she sought a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction for the return of properties she claimed as her paraphernal and exclusive property, which were under the husband’s administration. Respondent husband opposed the hearing of this ancillary motion, invoking Article 103 of the Civil Code, which prohibits the trial of a legal separation case before six months from the filing of the petition.
The respondent Judge granted the husband’s motion and suspended the hearing on the petition for preliminary injunction, interpreting Article 103 as an absolute bar to any judicial action, including on ancillary matters, during the six-month cooling-off period. This order prompted the wife to file the present petition for certiorari, arguing that the lower court should have acted on her motion for injunction.

ISSUE

Whether Article 103 of the Civil Code, which prohibits the trial of an action for legal separation before six months, also precludes the court from hearing a motion for a preliminary mandatory injunction sought as an ancillary remedy in the same case.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, ruling that Article 103 is not an absolute bar to hearing a motion for preliminary injunction prior to the expiration of the six-month period. The legal logic is that while the six-month period is intended as a cooling-off period to foster possible reconciliation by preventing the trial on the merits, it does not immobilize the court from addressing urgent ancillary matters related to property and support.
The Court found justification in Article 104 of the Civil Code, which allows the court to appoint an administrator for conjugal property after a petition for legal separation is filed. This indicates legislative recognition that property issues may require judicial intervention even during the cooling-off period. To deny such intervention could cause injustice, as in this case where the wife alleged the husband, accused of concubinage, continued to manage her claimed paraphernal property. The Court cited Araneta v. Concepcion, which held that matters like custody, support, and alimony pendente lite should be determined by the court according to circumstances, notwithstanding Article 103. Furthermore, more than six months had elapsed since the challenged order, removing any impediment. The order was set aside, and the respondent Judge was directed to hear the motion for injunction without delay.