CASE DIGEST 3 – GAN VS REYES

DOCTRINE: Absoluta sententia expositore non indiget or to the plain words of a legal provision we
should make no further explanation.

FACTS:

1. After declining the demand for support for their “love child” and denying paternity thereof,
Bernadette Pondevida, instituted a complaint against Agustus Gan in behalf of their daughter
Francheska Pondevida praying for support from respondent. Bernadette was quite apprehensive
that she would not be able to send Francheska to school.

2. Gan moved to dismiss the petition saying that Francheska’s birth certificate indicated an
“unknown” father thus there was no legal basis for the claim of support. His motion to dismiss
was denied by the trial court. Despite denial, Gan failed to file his answer and the trial court
declared him in default. As such, he was ordered to recognize Francheska as his illegitimate child
entitled to filiation and support. Bernadette moved for execution of judgment which the trial
court granted by issuing a writ of execution, citing as reason Francheska’s immediate need for
schooling.

3. Gan appealed with CA invoking trial court’s absence of a good reason for immediate enforcement
and technicalities in the issuance of writ of execution. CA dismissed the petition on the
ratiocination that under Sec 4, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure judgments for support
are immediately executory and cannot be stayed by an appeal. Hence this petition with SC.

ISSUE: Whether or not the lower courts erred in issuing and enforcing the writ of execution

HELD: No. Petition is DENIED and the writ of execution issued by the lower court is AFFIRMED.

1. There is no evidence to justify the setting aside of the writ on the ground that it was issued beyond
the legitimate bounds of judicial discretion. Sec 4, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
clearly states that, unless ordered by the trial court, judgments in actions for support are
immediately executory and cannot be stayed by an appeal. This is an exception to the general
rule which provides that the taking of an appeal stays the execution of the judgment and that
advance executions will only be allowed if there are urgent reasons therefor. To consider then
petitioner's argument that there should be good reasons for the advance execution of a judgment
would violate the clear and explicit language of the rule mandating immediate execution.

2. Petitioner is reminded that to the plain words of a legal provision we should make no further
explanation. Absoluta sententia expositore non indiget. Indeed, the interpretation which
petitioner attempts to foist upon us would only lead to absurdity, its acceptance negating the
plain meaning of the provision subject of the petition.