Facts:

Luis Araneta filed an action for legal separation on the ground of adultery against his wife Emma. After the issues were joined, Emma filed an omnibus petition, supported by her Affidavit, to secure custody of their three minor children, a monthly support for herself and said children, the return of her passport, to enjoin Luis from ordering his hirelings from harassing and molesting her. Luis opposed the petition, denying the misconduct imputed to him and alleging that Emma had abandoned the children. He prayed that the parties be required to submit their respective evidence.

Judge Concepcion resolved the omnibus petition, granting the custody of the children to Emma and a monthly allowance of P2,300 for support for her and the children, P300 for a house and P2,000 as attorney’s fees. Upon refusal of the judge to reconsider the order, Luis filed a petition for certiorari against said order and for mandamus to compel the respondent judge to require the parties to submit evidence before deciding the omnibus petition. 

The main reason given by the judge, for refusing Luis’ request that evidence be allowed to be introduced on the issues, is the prohibition contained in Article 103 of the Civil Code, which reads as follows:

“ART. 103. An action for legal separation shall in no case be tried before six months shall have elapsed since the filing of the petition.” (now Art 58, Family Code)


Issue:

Does the rule prohibiting the hearing of an action for legal separation before the lapse of six months from the filing of the petition preclude the court from acting on an omnibus petition for support and custody?


Held:

It is conceded that the period of six months fixed therein is evidently intended as a cooling off period to make possible a reconciliation between the spouses. The recital of their grievances against each other in court may only fan their already inflamed passions against one another, and the lawmaker has imposed the period to give them opportunity for dispassionate reflection. But this practical expedient, necessary to carry out legislative policy, does not have the effect of overriding other provisions such as the determination of the custody of the children and alimony and support pendente lite according to the circumstances. (Article 105, Civil Code, now Art. 49, Family Code.) The law expressly enjoins that these should be determined by the court according to the circumstances. If these are ignored or the courts close their eyes to actual facts, rank injustice may be caused.

The rule is that all the provisions of the law even if apparently contradictory, should be allowed to stand and given effect by reconciling them if necessary.

“The practical inquiry in litigation is usually to determine what a particular provision, clause or word means. To answer it one must proceed as he would with any other composition — construe it with reference to the leading idea or purpose of the whole instrument. A statute is passed as a whole and not in parts or sections and is animated by one general purpose and intend. Consequently, each part of section should be construed in connection with every other part or section so as to produce a harmonious whole. Thus it is not proper to confine interpretation to the one section to be construed.” (Southerland, Statutory Construction section 4703, pp. 336-337.)

Thus the determination of the custody and alimony should be given effect and force provided it does not go to the extent of violating the policy of the cooling off period. That is, evidence not affecting the cause of the separation, like the actual custody of the children, the means conducive to their welfare and convenience during the pendency of the case, these should be allowed that the court may determine which is best for their custody.

The writ prayed for is hereby issued and the Respondent judge or whosoever takes his place is ordered to proceed on the question of custody and support pendente lite in accordance with this opinion. The court’s order fixing the alimony and requiring payment is reversed. Without costs. (Araneta vs. Hon. Concepcion, G.R. No. L-9667, July 31, 1956)