ELENA CONTRERAS, plaintiff-appellant, vs.CESAR J. MACARAIG, defendant-appellee.Jose T. Nery for plaintiff-appellee.The City fiscal for defendant-appellant.Cesar J. Macaraig in his own behalf. DIZON, J.:Appeal taken by Elena Contreras from a decision of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Manila in Civil Case o. !!"#$ dismissin% her complaint upon the %round that the same &as filed more than one year from and after the date on &hich she had become co%ni'ant of the cause for le%al separation.(he follo&in%, facts found by the trial court are not in dispute)*laintiff and defendant &ere married on March "+, ",-. in the Catholic Church of /uiapo, Manila. 0ut of their Marria%e, three children &ere born) Eusebio C. Macarai%, on January "", ",-#1 2ictoria C. Macarai%, on March .+, ",-+1 and Ale3ander C. Macarai%, on Au%ust 4, ",-$. All the children are in the care of plaintiff &ife.5ometime in ",-$, the couple ac6uired ri%hts, as lessee and purchaser under a conditional sale a%reement, to o&n a house and lot, kno&n as 7ot 4, 8lock $ of the *hilamlife 9omes in /ue'on City &hich they transferred in favor of their three children on 0ctober .,, ",-$ :E3h. ;s father. (he spouses o&n no other con?u%al property.=mmediately before the election of ",+", defendant &as employed as mana%er of theprintin% establishment o&ned by plaintiff>s father kno&n as the M=C0 0ffset. =n that capacity, defendant met and came to kno& 7ily Ann Alcala, &ho place orders &ith M=C0 0ffset for propa%anda materials for Mr. 5er%io 0sme@a, &ho &as then a 2ice-*residential candidate. After the elections of ",+", defendant resi%ned from M=C0 0ffset to be a special a%ent at Malaca@an%. 9e be%an to be a&ay so often and to come home very late. Apon plaintiff>s in6uiry, defendant e3plained that he &as out ona series of confidential missions.=n 5eptember, ",+., Avelino 7ubos, driver of the family car, told plaintiff that defendant &as livin% in 5in%alon% &ith 7ily Ann Alcala. Bhen defendant, the follo&in%0ctober, returned to the con?u%al home, plaintiff refrained from verifyin% 7ubos> reportfrom defendant in her desire not to an%er nor drive defendant a&ay. Althou%h plaintiff, in April ",+#, also received rumors that defendant &as seen &ith a &oman &ho &as on the family &ay on Dasmari@as 5t., she &as so happy that defendant a%ain return to the family home in May, ",+# that she once more desisted from discussin% the matter &ith him because she did not &ish to precipitate a 6uarrel and drive him a&ay. All this &hile, defendant, if and &henever he returned to the family fold, &ould only stay for t&o or three days but &ould be %one for a period of about a month.After plaintiff received reports that 7ily Ann Alcala had %iven birth to a baby, she sent Mrs. ;elicisima Antio6uia, her father>s employee, to verify the reports. (he latter &as driven by 7ubos to the house in 5in%alon% and bet&een -)!! and +)!! o>clock that afternoon, she sa& defendant &as carryin% a baby in his arms. Mrs. Antio6uia then &ent to the parish priest of 5in%alon% &here she in6uired about the child of Cesar Macarai% and 7ily Ann Alcala and she &as %iven a copy of the baptismal certificate ofMaria 2ivien Ma%eline Macarai% :E3h. C< &hich she %ave to plaintiff sometime in 0ctober, ",+#.*laintiff then entreated her father-in-la&, 7ucilo Macarai%, to intercede &ith defendantand to convince him to return to his family. Mr. Macarai%, after talkin% to his son and seekin% him &ith the latter>s child told plaintiff that he could not do anythin%.=n ovember, ",+#, plaintiff re6uested the cooperation of defendant>s older sister, Mrs. Enri6ueta Ma?ul, and the latter obli%ed and arran%ed a meetin% at her home in 8uendia bet&een plaintiff and 7ily Ann Alcala. 7ily Ann said she &as &illin% to %ive updefendant as she had no desire to be accused criminally but it &as defendant &ho refused to break relationship &ith her.=n the early part of December, ",+#, plaintiff, accompanied by her t&o children, 2ictoria and Ale3ander, and by Mrs. 7eticia 7a%ronio &ent to talk to defendant at his place of &ork on Espa@a E3tension in front of /ue'on =nstitute. (hey repaired to 2ictoria *eak, a nearby restaurant, &here plaintiff pleaded &ith defendant to %ive up 7ily Ann Alcala and to return to the con?u%al home, assurin% him that she &as &illin% to for%ive him. Defendant informed plaintiff that he could no lon%er leave 7ily Ann andrefused to return to his le%itimate family.0n December "4, ",+#, plaintiff instituted the present action for le%al separation. Bhen defendant did not interpose any ans&er after he &as served summons, the case &as referred to the 0ffice of the City ;iscal of Manila pursuant to the provisions of Article "!" of the Civil Code. After a report &as received from Asst. ;iscal *rimitivoM. *e@aranda that he believed that there &as no collusion present, plaintiff &as allo&ed to present her evidence. Defendant has never appeared in this case.(he reasons relied upon by the trial court in dismissin% the complaint are set forth in the appealed decision as follo&s)Ander the facts established by plaintiff>s evidence, althou%h the infidelity of the husband is apparent, yet the case &ill have to be dismissed. Article "!. provides that, an action for le%al separation cannot be instituted e3cept &ithin one year after plaintiff Dbecame co%ni'ant of the cause.D =n the absence of a clear-cut decision of the 5upreme Court as to the e3act import of the term Dco%ni'ant,D the practical application of said Article can be attended &ith difficulty. ;or one thin%1 that rules mi%ht be different in case of adultery, &hich is an act, and for concubina%e, &hich may be a situation or a relationship.=n respect of concubina%e, the &ord >co%ni'ant> may not connote the date &hen proofthereof sufficient to establish the cause before a court of la& is possessed. 0ther&ise, the one year period &ould be meanin%less for practical purposes because all a &ife &ould have to do &ould be to claim that the necessary proof &as secured only &ithin one year before the filin% of the complaint. 0n the other hand, it should be hard to concede that &hat the la& envisa%es :and, in a &ay, encoura%es< is the filin% of a complaint &ithin one year after the innocent spouses has received information of the other>s infidelity, ho&soever baseless the report mi%ht be.(he Court believes that the correct rule lies bet&een the t&o e3tremes. At the time a &ife ac6uired information, &hich can be reasonably relied upon as true, that her husband is livin% in concubina%e &ith another &oman, the one-year period should bedeemed to have started even if the &ife shall not then be in possession of proof sufficient to establish the concubina%e before a court of la&. (he one-year period may be vie&ed, inter alia, as an alloted time &ithin &hich proof should be secured. =t is in the li%ht of this rule that the Court &ill determine &hether or not plaintiff>s action for le%al separation has prescribed.After her husband resi%ned from M=C0 0ffset to be a special a%ent in Malaca@an, subse6uent to the elections of ",+", he &ould seldom come home. 9e allayed plaintiff>s suspicions &ith the e3planation that he had been a&ay on >confidential missions.> 9o&ever, in 5eptember, ",+., Avelino 7ubos, plaintiff>s driver, reported to plaintiff that defendant &as livin% in 5in%alon% &ith 7ily Ann Alcala. As a matter of fact, it &as also 7ubos &ho brou%ht Mrs. ;. Antio6uia :&hen plaintiff had asked to verify the reports< to the house in 5in%alon% &here she sa& defendant, 7ily Ann and the baby.(he re6uirement of the la& that a complaint for le%al separation be filed &ithin one year after the date plaintiff become co%ni'ant of the cause is not of prescriptive nature, but is of the essence of the cause of action. =t is consonant &ith the philosophy that marria%e is an inviolable social institution so that the la& provides strict re6uirements before it &ill allo& a disruption of its status.=n the instant action, the Court has to find that plaintiff became co%ni'ant of defendant>s infidelity in 5eptember, ",+.. *laintiff made successive attempts to induce the husband to amend his errin% &ays but failed. 9er desire to brin% defendant back to the connubial fold and to preserve family solidarity deterred her from takin% timely le%al action.(he only 6uestion to be resolved is &hether the period of one year provided for in Article "!. of the Civil Code should be counted, as far as the instant case is concerned from 5eptember ",+. or from December ",+#. Computin% the period of one year from the former date, it is clear that plaintiff>s complaint filed on December "4, ",+# came a little too late, &hile the reverse &ould be true if said period is deemed to have commenced only in the month of December ",+#.(he period of Dfive years from after the date &hen such cause occurredD is not here involved.Apon the undisputed facts it seems clear that, in the month of 5eptember ",+., &hatever kno&led%eappellant had ac6uired re%ardin% the infidelity of her husband, that is, of the fact that he &as then livin% in 5in%alon% &ith 7ily Ann Alcala, &as only throu%h the information %iven to her by Avelino 7ubos, driver of the family car. Much as such hearsay information had pained and an%uished her, she apparently thou%ht it best E and no reasonable person may ?ustifiably blame her for it E not to %o deeper into the matter herself because in all probability even up to that time, not&ithstandin% her husband>s obvious ne%lect of his entire family, appellant still cherished the hope E ho&ever forlorn E of his comin% back home to them. =ndeed, &hen her husband returned to the con?u%al home the follo&in% 0ctober, she purposely refrained from brin%in% up the matter of his marital infidelity Din her desire not to an%er nor drive defendant a&ayD E 6uotin% the very &ords of the trial court. (rue, appellant like&ise heard in April ",+# rumors that her husband &as seen &ith a &oman on the family&ay on Dasmari@as 5treet, but failed a%ain to either brin% up the matter &ith her husband or make attempts to verify the truth of said rumors, but this &as due, as the lo&er court itself believed, because Dshe &as so happy that defendant a%ain returned to the family home in May ",+# that she once more desisted from discussin% the matter &ith him because she did not &ish to precipitate a 6uarrel and drive him a&ay.D As a matter of fact, not&ithstandin% all these painful informations &hich &ould not have been le%ally sufficient to make a case for le%al separation E appellant still made brave if desperate attempts to persuade her husband to come back home. =n the &ords of the lo&er court, she Dentreated her father-in-la&, 7ucilo Macarai%, to intercede &ith defendant and to convince him to return to his familyD and also Dre6uested the cooperation of defendant>s older sister, Mrs. Enri6ueta Ma?ulD for the same purpose, but all that &as of no avail. 9er husband remained obdurate.After a careful review of the recor, !e are "er#uae that, i$ the e%e# of the law, the o$l% ti&e whe$ a""ella$t reall% 'eca&e co($i)a$t of the i$fielit% of her hu#'a$ wa# i$ the earl% "art of Dece&'er *+,- whe$, .uoti$( fro& the a""eale eci#io$, the followi$( ha""e$e /I$ the earl% "art of Dece&'er, *+,-, "lai$tiff, acco&"a$ie '% her two chilre$, 0ictoria a$ Ale1a$er, a$ '% Mr#. Leticia La(ro$io we$t to tal2 to efe$a$t at hi# "lace of wor2 o$ E#"a3a E1te$#io$ i$ fro$t of 4ue)o$ I$#titute. The% re"aire to 0ictoria 5ea2, a $ear'% re#taura$t, where "lai$tiff "leae with efe$a$t to (ive u" Lil% A$$ Alcala a$ to retur$ to the co$6u(al ho&e, a##uri$( hi& that #he wa# willi$( to for(ive hi&. Defe$a$t i$for&e "lai$tiff that he coul $o lo$(er leave Lil% A$$ a$ refu#e to retur$ to hi# le(iti&ate fa&il%.7ro& all the fore(oi$( !e co$clue that it wa# o$l% o$ the occa#io$ &e$tio$ei$ the "recei$( "ara(ra"h whe$ her hu#'a$ a&itte to her that he wa# livi$( with a$ woul $o lo$(er leave Lil% A$$ to retur$ to hi# le(iti&ate fa&il% that a""ella$t &u#t 'e ee&e to 'e u$er o'li(atio$ to ecie whether to #ueor $ot to #ue for le(al #e"aratio$, a$ it wa# o$l% the$ that the le(al "erio of o$e %ear &u#t 'e ee&e to have co&&e$ce.B9ERE;0RE, the decision appealed from is set aside and another is hereby rendered holdin% that appellant is entitled to le%al separation as prayed for in her complaint1 and the case is hereby remanded to the lo&er court for appropriate proceedin%s in accordance &ith la&.L8C9 SOMOSA:RAMOS, petitioner, vs.T;E ;ONORAs part and an attempt by him a%ainst her life bein% alle%ed. 5he like&ise sou%ht the issuance of a &rit of preliminary mandatory in?unction for the return to her of &hat she claimed to be her paraphernal and e3clusive property, then under the administration and mana%ement of respondent Clemente Ramos. (here &as an opposition to the hearin% of such a motion, dated July #, ",F", based on Article "!# of the Civil Code. =t &as further manifested by him in a pleadin% dated July "+, ",F", that if the motion askin% for preliminary mandatory in?unction &ere heard, the prospectof the reconciliation of the spouses &ould become even more dim. Respondent Jud%e ordered the parties to submit their respective memoranda on the matter. (hen on 5eptember #, ",F", petitioner received an order dated Au%ust 4, ",F" of respondent Jud%e %rantin% the motion of respondent Ramos to suspend the hearin% of the petition for a &rit of mandatory preliminary in?unction. (hat is the order complained of in this petition for certiorari. Respondents &ere re6uired to ans&er accordin% to our resolution of 0ctober -, ",F". (he ans&er &as filed December . of that year. (hen on January "., ",F. came a manifestation from parties in the case submittin% the matter &ithout further ar%uments.After a careful consideration of the le%al 6uestion presented, it is the holdin% of this Court that Article "!# the Civil Code is not an absolute bar to the hearin% motion for preliminary in?unction prior to the e3piration of the si3-month period.". =t is understandable &hy there should be a period durin% &hich the court is precluded from actin%. 0rdinarily of course, no such delay is permissible. Justice to parties &ould not thereby be served. (he sooner the dispute is resolved, the better for all concerned. A suit for le%al separation, ho&ever, is somethin% else a%ain. =t involves a relationship on &hich the la& for the best reasons &ould attachthe 6uality of permanence. (hat there are times &hen domestic felicity is much less than it ou%ht to be is not of course to be denied. Crievances, &hether fancied or real, may be entertained by one or both of the spouses. (here may be constant bickerin%. (he loss affection on the part of one or both may be discernible. onetheless, it &ill not serve public interest, much less the &elfare of the husband or the &ife, to allo& them to %o their respective &ays. Bhere there are offsprin%, the reasonfor maintainin% the con?u%al union is even more imperative. =t is a mark of realism of the la& that for certain cases, adultery on the part of the &ife and concubina%e on the part of the husband, or an attempt of one spouse a%ainst the life of the other, * it reco%ni'es, albeit reluctantly, that the couple is better off apart. A suit for le%al separation lies. Even then, the hope that the parties may settle their differences is not all to%ether abandoned. (he healin% balm of time may aid in the process. 9opefully, the %uilty parties may mend his or her &ays, and the offended party may in turn e3hibit ma%nanimity. 9ence, the interposition of a si3-month period before an action for le%al separation is to be tried.(he court &here the action is pendin% accordin% to Article "!# is to remain passive. =t must let the parties alone in the mean&hile. =t is precluded from hearin% the suit. (here is then some plausibility for the vie& of the lo&er court that an ancillary motion such as one for preliminary mandatory in?unction is not to be acted on. =f it &ere other&ise, there &ould be a failure to abide by the literal lan%ua%e of such codal provision. (hat the la&, ho&ever, remains co%ni'ant of the need in certain cases for ?udicial po&er to assert itself is discernible from &hat is set forth in the follo&in% article. =t reads thus) DAfter the filin% of the petition for le%al separation, the spouse shall be entitled to live separately from each other and mana%e their respective property. (he husband shall continue to mana%e the con?u%al partnership property but if the court deems it proper, it may appoint another to mana%e said property, in &hich case the administrator shall have the same ri%hts and duties as a %uardian and shall not be allo&ed to dispose of the income or of the capital e3cept in accordance &ith the orders of the court.D = (here &ould appear to be then a reco%nition that the 6uestion of mana%ement of their respective property need not be left unresolved even durin% such si3-month period. An administrator may even be appointed for the mana%ement of the property of the con?u%al partnership. (he absolute limitation from &hich the court suffers under the precedin% article is thereby eased. (he parties may in the mean&hile be heard. (here is ?ustification then for the petitioner>s insistence that her motion for preliminary mandatory in?unction should not be i%nored by the lo&er court. (here is all the more reason for this response from respondent Jud%e, considerin% that the husband &hom she accused of concubina%e and an attempt a%ainst her life &ould in the mean&hile continue in the mana%ement of &hat she claimed to be her paraphernal property, an assertion that &as not specifically denied by him. Bhat &as held by this Court in Araneta !. Concepcion, - thus possesses relevance) D=t is conceded that the period of si3 months fi3ed therein Article "!# :Civil Code< is evidently intended as a coolin% off period to make possible a reconciliation bet&een the spouses. (he recital of their %rievances a%ainst each other in court may only fan their already inflamed passions a%ainst one another, and the la&maker has imposedthe period to %ive them opportunity for dispassionate reflection. 8ut this practical e3pedient, necessary to carry out le%islative policy, does not have the effect of overridin% other provisions such as the determination of the custody of the children and alimony and support pendente lite accordin% to the circumstance ... (he la& e3pressly en?oins that these should be determined by the court accordin% to the circumstances. =f these are i%nored or the courts close their eyes to actual facts, rank in?ustice may be caused.D > At any rate, from the time of the issuance of the order complained of on Au%ust 4, ",F", more than si3 months certainly had elapsed. (hus there can be no more impediment for the lo&er court actin% on the motion of petitioner for the issuance of a &rit of preliminary mandatory in?unction.B9ERE;0RE, the plea of petitioner for a &rit of certiorari is %ranted, and the order of respondent Court of Au%ust 4, ",F", suspendin% the hearin% on the petition for a &rit of preliminary mandatory in?unction is set aside. Respondent Jud%e is directed to proceed &ithout delay to hear the motion for preliminary mandatory in?unction. Costs a%ainst respondent Clemente C. Ramos.