FACTS:

Bernadette Pondevida sent a letter to Augustus Gan, demanding support for their daughter. Gan denied being the father of the child. Bernadette filed a complaint for support on behalf of their daughter, Francheska. Gan moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that there was no legal or factual basis for the claim since the child's birth certificate stated that the father was "UNKNOWN". Despite the denial of the motion to dismiss, Gan failed to file his answer within the given period and was declared in default. The trial court received Bernadette's evidence ex parte and eventually rendered a decision ordering Gan to recognize Francheska as his illegitimate child and pay support. Bernadette filed a motion for the execution of the support judgment, and a sheriff levied upon Gan's motor vehicle. Gan appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals and filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, challenging the immediate execution of the judgment. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, stating that judgments for support are immediately executory. Gan sought reconsideration, which was denied. Gan then filed a petition with the Supreme Court questioning the dismissal of his certiorari petition, questioning the validity of the writ of execution, and seeking to set aside the default order and judgment. Gan claimed that if given the chance to prove his defense of adultery, the claim of support would be denied.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss based on the claim that the complaint failed to state a cause of action.

2. Whether or not the trial court erred in declaring the petitioner in default for failure to file his answer within the reglementary period.

RULING:

1. The trial court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss. The fact that Francheska's certificate of birth listed her father as "UNKNOWN" does not negate the possibility of a legal or factual basis for the claim of support. The complaint alleged that the petitioner is the father of the child and therefore has a legal duty to provide support.

2. The trial court did not err in declaring the petitioner in default for failure to file his answer within the reglementary period. The petitioner's motion to admit answer was filed more than 90 days after the expiration of the reglementary period, and only after the private respondent moved for the petitioner to be declared in default.

PRINCIPLES:

• A certificate of birth indicating the child's father as "UNKNOWN" does not negate the possibility of a legal or factual basis for a claim of support.

• Failure to file an answer within the reglementary period may result in the declaration of default by the court.