The main action was brought by  petitioner against his wife, one of the respondent herein, for legal separation on the  ground of adultery.  After the  issues  were joined defendant therein filed an omnibus petition to secure custody of their three minor children,  a monthly support of P5,000 for herself and said children, and the return of her passport, to enjoin plaintiff from ordering his hirelings from harassing and molesting her, and to have plaintiff therein pay for  the fees  of her  attorney in the action. The petition is supported by her affidavit.  Plaintiff opposed the petition, denying the misconduct imputed to him and alleging that defendant had abandoned the children; alleging that conjugal properties were worth only P80,000, not  one  million  pesos as  alleged by  defendant; denying the taking of her passport or  the supposed vexation, and contesting her right to  attorney's fees.  Plaintiff prayed that as  the petition for custody  and support cannot be determined  without evidence,  the parties  be  required to submit their respective evidence.  He also contended that defendant 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 unfit to educate her children, being unstable in  her emotions and unable to  give the children the love, respect  and  care  of a true mother and without means to educate  them.  As to  the claim for support, plaintiff claims that there are no conjugal assets and she  is not entitled to support because of her infidelity and that she was able to support herself.  Affidavits and  documents were submitted both in support and  against the omnibus petition.

The respondent judge  resolved the  omnibus  petition, granting the custody of the children to defendant 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, petitioner filed  the present 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.   We granted a writ of preliminary  injunction against the order.

The  main  reason given  by  the  judge,  for  refusing plaintiff's request that evidence be allow«d 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."

Interpreting the spirit and policy of the provision the trial judge says: 

"This provision  of the code is mandatory.  This  case cannot be tried within the period of six months from the filing of the complaint The court understands that the introduction of any evidence, be it on the merits of the case or  on  any incident, is prohibited.  The law, up to the last minute, exerts efforts at  preserving the family and the home  from utter ruin. Interpreting the intent  of said article, the court understands that  every  step it should take within the period of  six months above stated should be taken  toward reconciling the  parties.  Admitting evidence now will make reconciliation difficult if not impossible. In this  case the court  should act  as  if nothing yet had happened.  The  children must  be given for custody to him or her who by family custom and tradition  is the custodian  of  the children.   The court should ignore that  defendant had  committed any  act of  adultery  or the  plaintiff,  any act  of cruelty to his wife.  The status quo of the family must be restored as much as possible.  In  this country, unlike  perhaps in any  other  country of the globe, a family or a home is a  petite corporation. The 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.  The mother keeps home,  keeps children in her company and  custody, and keeps the treasure of that family.  In a typical Filipino family, the wife  prepares home  budget  and makes  little investment without the knowledge of  her husband.  A husband who holds the purse  is un-Filipino.  He is  shunned  in  Filipino  community.  The court therefore, in taking  action on petition  No. 1 should be guided  by the  above considerations."   (pp.  116-117, Record  on Appeal.)

It  may be noted that since  more than six months have elapsed since the filing of the petition the question offered may not  be allowed.   It  is, however,  believed  that the reasons for  granting the preliminary  injunction  should be given that the scope of the article cited may be explained. It is conceded that the period of six months fixed therein Article 103 (Civil Code) 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.)  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 in justice may be caused.

Take the  case  at bar,  for instance.  Why should the court ignore the claim of adultery by defendant in the face of express allegations under oath to that effect, supported by circumstantial evidence consisting of letter the authenticity  of which cannot be denied.  And why assume that the children are in  the  custody  of the  wife, and that the latter  is living at the conjugal  dwelling, when ,it  is precisely  alleged in the petition and in the affidavits, that she has abandoned the conjugal abode?  Evidence of all  these disputed allegations should be allowed  that the discretion of the court as to the custody and alimony pendente lite may be lawfully exercised.

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,.

Paras, C. J.,  Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes A., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., and Endencia, JJ.,  concur.