1.

LUCINA BAITO, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
ANATALIO SARMIENTO, defendant-appellee.
FACTS: Plaintiff sought support of 720 pesos

PROCEDURAL HISTORY:Appellant contends that the motion for reconsideration

that she filed with the Court of First instance which denied her complaint for support
was wrongfully dismissed

ISSUE: Which court has jurisdiction over an action for support if the amount claimed
or demanded as support is only P720, or not more than P2,000 (now P5,000

HELD: An action for support does not involve the determination of the amount to be
given as support, but also the relation of the parties, the right to support created by the
relation, the needs of the claimant, the financial resources of the person from whom
the support is sought, all of which are not capable of pecuniary estimation. For this
reason, an action for support falls within the original jurisdiction of Courts of First
Instance under section 44(a) of Republic Act No. 296, as amended by Republic Act
No. 2613.

2. AUGUSTUS CAEZAR R. GAN, Petitioner, v. HON. ANTONIO C. REYES, in

his capacity as Presiding Judge of RTC-Br. 61, Baguio City, ALBERT G.
TOLENTINO, in his capacity as RTC Sheriff of Baguio City, and FRANCHESKA
JOY C. PONDEVIDA, assisted by BERNADETTE C. PONDEVIDA, Respondents.

FACTS: Bernadette Pondevida sought support from petitioner for her child,
Francheska Pondevida. Petitioner alleges that the child is not his; his name is not in
the birth certificate and dies paternity. The trial court ruled in favor of Pondevida.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, imputing grave abuse of discretion to the trial
court for ordering the immediate execution of the judgment. Petitioner averred that
the writ of execution was issued despite the absence of a good reason for immediate
enforcement. Petitioner insisted that as the judgment sought to be executed did not yet
attain finality there should be an exceptional reason to warrant its execution. He
further alleged that the writ proceeded from an order of default and a judgment
rendered by the trial court in complete disregard of his "highly meritorious defense."
Finally, petitioner impugned the validity of the writ as he argued that it was issued
without notice to him. Petitioner stressed the fact that he received copy of the motion
for immediate execution two (2) weeks after its scheduled hearing

ISSUE: Whether the issuance of the writ of execution by the trial court and affirmed
by the Court of Appeals with the vice of grave abuse of discretion

HELD: In all cases involving a child, his interest and welfare are always the
paramount concerns. There may be instances where, in view of the poverty of the
child, it would be a travesty of justice to refuse him support until the decision of the
trial court attains finality while time continues to slip away. Petitioner would also
have us annul the writ of execution on the ground that he was not notified of its
issuance. We are unable to accept such a plea for enough has been done by petitioner
to delay the execution of the writ. As the records show, in partial fulfillment of the
writ of execution petitioner surrendered a sedan which apparently was not his as it
was later ordered released to a third party who laid claim over the levied
vehicle.13 Also, petitioner filed before the Court of Appeals a Motion for Leave to
Deposit in Court Support Pendente Lite promising to deposit the amount due as
support every 15th of the month, but to date has not deposited any amount in
complete disavowal of his undertaking.14 He was not even deterred from appealing
before us and needlessly taking up our time and energy by posing legal questions that
can be characterized, at best, as flimsy and trivial. We are thus not prepared to
abrogate the writ of execution issued in favor of private respondent for substantial
justice would be better served if petitioner be precluded from interposing another
barrier to the immediate execution of the support judgment.