SOMOSA-RAMOS V.

VAMENTA
Nature: Preliminary mandatory injunction in a legal separation case Ponente: Fernando Date: 29 July 1972 DOCTRINE: The six-month cooling off period from filing of the legal separation action does not bar resolution of issues regarding management of properties. FACTS: Relevant Provision of Law: NCC, Art. 103 Lucy Somosa-Ramos filed an action for legal separation, concubinage, and an attempt against her life against husband respondent Clemente Ramos. There, she also sought the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction for the return of her paraphernal property which was currently under Clementes management. The lower court denied the writ for prelim. mandatory injunction because Judge Vamenta was of the impression that Art. 103 barred such action. Art. 103 dictates that no hearing on an action for legal separation shall be held before the lapse of six months from the filing of the petition. ISSUES: (1) W/N Art. 103 bars the issuance of a writ of prelim. mandatory injunction over properties RULING: Art. 103 does not bar the court from hearing questions regarding property management between the spouses. Art. 103 provides that 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. This is basis enough for allowing the court to resolve issues regarding management of property even before the six-month cooling off period has been lifted. The case of Araneta v. Concepcion also states that the six month prohibition also does not cover actions regarding custody, alimony, and support pendent lite. (2) Why is there a need for a six-month period before hearing on the action for legal separation? RULING: Cases generally require a speedy resolution. This is not the case in legal separation where there is hope that the parties may settle their differences and even abandon such action

NOTES: Case became moot because the six month period had already lapsed by the time of the SC decision.