You are on page 1of 2

SUBJECT: TOPIC: CASE NAME: Somosa-Ramos v Vamenta

Persons When to try actions( Legal Separation) Petitioners: Lucy Somosa-Ramos Respondents: Judge
Cipriano Vementa, Jr. and Clemente Ramos

RELEVANT PROVISIONS:
Article 103, Civil Code. An action for legal separation shall in no case be tried before six months shall have
elapsed since the filing of the petition.

Article 104, Civil Code. After the filing of the petition for legal separation, the spouses shall be entitled to live
separately from each other and manage their respective property.

PONENTE: Fernando, J Case Date: July 29, 1972

CASE SUMMARY:

DETAILED FACTS:
Lucy Somosa-Ramos filed a petition for legal separation against Clemente Ramos for concubinage and attempt on
her life.

At the same time, she filed before the same court a motion for preliminary injunction for the return of her
paraphernal and exclusive properties which was then under Clementes administration.

Clemente opposed such motion contending that if it were heard, the prospect of reconciliation would be dim. He
claimed that the court cant try cases for legal separation within the 6-month cooling-off period pursuant to Art. 103
of the Civil Code (Now Family Code Art. 58).

The court granted to opposition of Clemente and suspended the hearing of the motion for preliminary inunction.

Lucy appealed to this court.

ISSUE: HOLDING:
Whether Art. 103 is an absolute bar to hearing the NO
motion for reconsideration
The period of 6 months in Art. 103 is intended as a
cooling-off period to make reconciliation possible
because the parties recital of their grievances against
each other in court will definitely just make things
worse.

But Art. 103 can not override other provisions such as


the determination of the custody of the children,
alimony and support pending the litigation. The law
expressly enjoins that these should be determined by the
court according to the circumstances.

FIRSTINITIALLASTNAME_A2021 1
--Extra explanation--

moreover, there is justification for Lucys insistence that


her motion for preliminary mandatory injunction be
acted upon by the court. Moreover, there is even all the
more reason for the court to take cognizance of the
motion considering that the husband whom she
accused of concubinage and an attempt against her life
would in the meanwhile continue in the management of
what she claimed to be her paraphernal property, an
assertion that was not specifically denied by him.

Petition granted. Respondent Judge is directed to proceed without delay to hear the motion for preliminary
mandatory injunction.

FIRSTINITIALLASTNAME_A2021 2