Article 208 Family Code of the Philippines E.O. No. 209 s. 1987
Student # 7
by : Hilda D. Garcia
Article 208.
In case of contractual support or that given by will, the excess in amount beyond that required for legal support shall be subject to levy on attachment or execution.
Furthermore, contractual support shall be subject to adjustment whenever modification is necessary due to changes in circumstances manifestly beyond the contemplation of the parties. (n)
The law contemplates of a contractual support or that support which is given through a will. While the law does not allow the attachment or levy on legal support, however, it allows attachment or levy of the excess of a contractual support over and above legal support. It also says that contractual support can be adjusted when necessary due to changes in the circumstances manifestly beyond the contemplation of the parties.
Case Digest:
AUGUSTUS CAEZAR R. GAN, Petitioner, vs.
HON. ANTONIO C. REYES , Respondents.
G.R. No. 145527 : May 28, 2002
Ponente: BELLOSILLO, J.:
DOCTRINE: Absoluta sententia expositore non indiget
or to the plain words of a legal provision we should make no further explanation.
FACTS:
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 forschooling.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
RULING:
No. Petition is DENIED and the writ of execution issued by the lower court is AFFIRMED.
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.
