Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 323 views

    Somosa-Ramos V Vamenta, Jr.

    Uploaded by

    Alelie Joy Malazarte
    The petitioner filed for legal separation from her husband and sought a preliminary mandatory injunction to recover her separate property. The respondent husband opposed the injunction, claiming it could hinder reconciliation. The trial court agreed and suspended the hearing. The issue is whether Article 103, which prohibits hearings for legal separation for six months, also precludes hearings for ancillary remedies. The Supreme Court ruled that Article 103 requires courts to remain passive in separation suits for six months. However, Article 104 provides an exception that allows courts to resolve property management during this time, such as through injunctions or appointing an administrator. Therefore, courts are not absolutely prohibited from acting on ancillary remedies like injunctions within the six-month period.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved

    Somosa-Ramos V Vamenta, Jr.

    Uploaded by

    Alelie Joy Malazarte
    323 views1 page
    The petitioner filed for legal separation from her husband and sought a preliminary mandatory injunction to recover her separate property. The respondent husband opposed the injunction, claiming it could hinder reconciliation. The trial court agreed and suspended the hearing. The issue is whether Article 103, which prohibits hearings for legal separation for six months, also precludes hearings for ancillary remedies. The Supreme Court ruled that Article 103 requires courts to remain passive in separation suits for six months. However, Article 104 provides an exception that allows courts to resolve property management during this time, such as through injunctions or appointing an administrator. Therefore, courts are not absolutely prohibited from acting on ancillary remedies like injunctions within the six-month period.

    Original Description:

    Somosa-Ramos v Vamenta, Jr. CASE DIGEST

    Original Title

    Somosa-Ramos v Vamenta, Jr.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner filed for legal separation from her husband and sought a preliminary mandatory injunction to recover her separate property. The respondent husband opposed the injunction, claiming it could hinder reconciliation. The trial court agreed and suspended the hearing. The issue is whether Article 103, which prohibits hearings for legal separation for six months, also precludes hearings for ancillary remedies. The Supreme Court ruled that Article 103 requires courts to remain passive in separation suits for six months. However, Article 104 provides an exception that allows courts to resolve property management during this time, such as through injunctions or appointing an administrator. Therefore, courts are not absolutely prohibited from acting on ancillary remedies like injunctions within the six-month period.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    323 views1 page

    Somosa-Ramos V Vamenta, Jr.

    Uploaded by

    Alelie Joy Malazarte
    The petitioner filed for legal separation from her husband and sought a preliminary mandatory injunction to recover her separate property. The respondent husband opposed the injunction, claiming it could hinder reconciliation. The trial court agreed and suspended the hearing. The issue is whether Article 103, which prohibits hearings for legal separation for six months, also precludes hearings for ancillary remedies. The Supreme Court ruled that Article 103 requires courts to remain passive in separation suits for six months. However, Article 104 provides an exception that allows courts to resolve property management during this time, such as through injunctions or appointing an administrator. Therefore, courts are not absolutely prohibited from acting on ancillary remedies like injunctions within the six-month period.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    of 1

    SOMOSA-RAMOS vs. VAMENTA, JR.

    G. R. No. L-34132
    FACTS:
    Petitioner, Lucy Somosa-Ramos, filed an action for legal separation against respondent,
    Clemente Ramos based on the grounds of concubinage and an attempt by him against
    her life. Petitioner likewise sought the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory
    injunction to recover her paraphernal and exclusive property. The hearing on the motion
    was opposed by respondent Ramos claiming that if the motion asking for preliminary
    mandatory injunction were heard, it would hinder the possibility of reconciliation of the
    spouses. Respondent Judge granted the motion of respondent Ramos to suspend the
    hearing of the petition for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction.

    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 suit.

    RULING:
    The court where an action for legal separation is pending according to Article 103 of the
    Civil Code is to remain passive. It must let the parties alone in the meanwhile. It is
    precluded from hearing the suit. There is then reasonableness for the view that an
    ancillary motion such as preliminary mandatory injunction is not 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 is discernible from what is set forth in Article 104 of the
    Code. Here there would appear to be a recognition that the question of management of
    the spouses’ respective property need not be left unresolved even during such six-
    month period. An administrator may even be appointed for the management of the
    conjugal partnership. The absolute limitation from which the court suffers under Article
    103 is thereby relieved. The parties may in the meanwhile be heard.

    You might also like