Case No. 2: Araneta v.

Conception
Chapter 6: Purpose or context as to controlling guide

Facts:
- Petitioner brought the main action against his wife, one of the
Respondent Herein, for legal separation on the ground of
adultery
!efendant "herein #led an omnibus petition to secure
custody of their three minor children, a monthly support
of P$,%%% for herself and said children, and the return of her
passport, to en&oin Plaintiff 'rom ordering his hirelings from
harassing and molesting her, and to ha(e Plaintiff "herein pay
for the fees of her attorney in the action
Plaintiff opposed the petition, denying the misconduct
imputed to him and alleging that !efendant Had abandoned
the children) *lleging that con&ugal properties were worth only
P+%, %%%, not one million pesos as alleged by !efendant)
!enying the ta,ing of her passport or the supposed (e-ation,
and contesting her right to attorney.s fees. Plaintiff Prayed that
as the petition for custody and support cannot be determined
without e(idence, the parties are re/uired to submit their
respecti(e e(idence. He also contended that !efendant is not
entitled to the custody of the children as she had abandoned
them and had committed adultery, that by her conduct she had
become un#t to educate her children, being unstable in her
emotions and unable to gi(e the children the lo(e, respect and
care of a true mother and without means to educate them.
-"he Respondent &udge resol(ed the omnibus petition,
granting the custody of the children to !efendant and a
monthly allowance of P2,0%% for support for her and the
children, P0%% for a house and P2,%%% as attorney.s fees.
1pon refusal of the &udge to reconsider the order, Petitioner
#led the present petition for certiorari against said order and
for mandamus to compel the Respondent &udge to re/uire the
parties to submit e(idence before deciding the omnibus
petition. 2e granted a writ of preliminary in&unction against the
order. "he main reason gi(en by the &udge, for refusing
Plaintiff .s re/uest that e(idence be allowed to be introduced
on the issues, is the prohibition contained in *rticle 3%0 of the
Ci(il Code, which reads as follows:
4*R". 3%0.

*n action for legal separation shall in no case be tried before
si- months shallha(e elapsed since the #ling of the petition.5
Capuchino 6 7tatutory Construction 1
Case No. 2: Araneta v. Conception
Chapter 6: Purpose or context as to controlling guide

Issues: whether the petition for legal separation may be
granted8
Held/Ratio:

9nterpreting the spirit and policy of the pro(ision the trial
&udge says:
4"his pro(ision of the code is mandatory. "his case cannot be
tried within the period of si- months from the #ling of the
complaint. "he court understands that the introduction of any
e(idence, be it on the merits of the case or on any incident, is
prohibited. "he law, up to the lastminute, e-erts efforts at
preser(ing the family and the home from utter ruin. 9nterpreting
the intent of said article, the court understands that e(ery step
it should ta,e within the period of si- months abo(e stated
should be ta,en toward reconciling the parties. *dmitting
e(idence now will ma,e reconciliation dif#cult if not impossible.
9n this case the court should act as if nothing yet had
happened. "he children must be gi(en for custody to him or
her who by family custom and tradition is the custodian of the
children. "he court should ignore that !efendant had
committed any act of adultery or the Plaintiff, any act of cruelty
to his wife. "he status /uo of the family must be restored as
much as possible. 9n this country, unli,e perhaps in any other
country of the globe, a family or a home is a petite corporation.
"he father is the administrator who earns the family funds,
dictates rules in the home for all to follow, and protects all
members of his family. "he mother ,eeps home, ,eeps
children in her company and custody, and ,eeps the treasure
of that family. 9n a typical 'ilipino family, the wife prepares
home budget and ma,es little in(estment without the
,nowledge of her husband. * husband who holds the purse is
un'ilipino. He is shunned in 'ilipino community. "he court
therefore, in ta,ing action on petition No. 3 should be guided
by the abo(e considerations.5 :Pp. 33633;,Record on
*ppeal.<9t may be noted that since more than si- months ha(e
elapsed since the #ling of the petition the /uestion offered may
not be allowed. 9t is, howe(er, belie(ed that the reasons for
granting the preliminary in&unction should be gi(en that the
scope of the article cited may be e-plained. 9t is conceded that
the period of si- months #-ed therein *rticle 3%0 :Ci(il Code< is
e(idently intended as a cooling off period to ma,e possible
reconciliation between the spouses. "he recital of their
grie(ances against each other in court may only fan their
already in=amed passions against one another, and the
lawma,er has imposed the period to gi(e them opportunity for
dispassionate re=ection. >ut this practical e-pedient,
necessary to carry out legislati(e policy, does not ha(e the
effect of o(erriding other pro(isions such as the determination
of the custody of the children and alimony and support
pendente lite according to the circumstances. :*rticle 3%$,
Ci(il Code.< "he law e-pressly en&oins that the court according
to the circumstances should determine these. 9f these are
ignored or the courts close their eyes to actual facts, ran, in
&ustice may be caused. "a,e the case at bar, for instance. 2hy
should the court ignore the claim of adultery by !efendant in
the face of e-press allegations under oath to that effect,
supported by circumstantial e(idence consisting of letter the
authenticity of which cannot be denied8 *nd why assume that
the children are in the custody of the wife, and that the latter is
li(ing at the con&ugal dwelling, when it is precisely alleged in
the petition and in the af#da(its, that she has abandoned the
con&ugal abode8 ?(idence of all these disputed allegations
Capuchino 6 7tatutory Construction 2
Case No. 2: Araneta v. Conception
Chapter 6: Purpose or context as to controlling guide

should be allowed that the discretion of the court as to the
custody and alimony pendente lite may be lawfully e-ercised.
Relevance to Statutory Construction:
@9t is conceded that the period of si- months fi-ed therein
*rticle 3%0 :Ci(il Code< is e(idently intended as a cooling off
period to ma,e possible a reconciliation between the spouses.
"he recital of their grie(ances against each other in court may
only fan their already inflamed passions against one another,
and the lawma,er has imposed the period to gi(e them
opportunity for dispassionate reflection. >ut this practical
e-pedient, necessary to carry out legislati(e policy, does not
ha(e the effect of o(erriding other pro(isions such as the
determination of the custody of the children and alimony and
support pendente lite according to the circumstance ... "he law
e-pressly en&oins that these should be determined by the court
according to the circumstances. 9f these are ignored or the
courts close their eyes to actual facts, ran, in&ustice may be
caused.@
Capuchino 6 7tatutory Construction 3