FACTS: Worried that she might not be able to send her child because of lack of job, Alexis Marie E.

Montano wrote to Alexander D. Cuenca, the father of the her child. However, they were not married
and the child was born out of wedlock. Given the lack of monetary support for her child, she asked for
monetary support from Alexander so she can send their child to school. Petitioner, in his reply, denied
that he was the father of respondents child. Disappointed, Montano thereafter instituted in behalf of
her daughter a complaint against petitioner for support with prayer for support pendente lite. Petitioner
moved to dismiss on the ground that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. He argued that
since the respondents childs certificate of birth indicated was UNKNOWN, there were no legal or
factual bases for the claim of support. His motion however, was denied by the trial court. Now, the
petitioner is ordered by the Court to give 30, 000 every month as a support to his illegitimate child.
Forthwith, private respondent moved for execution of the judgment of support, which the trial court
granted by issuing a writ of execution, citing as reason therefore private respondent's immediate need
for enrolling their lovechild to school. The petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition
with the Court of Appeals 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.
However, the Court of Appeals dismissed his petition. His motion for reconsideration having been
denied, petitioner came to the Court impugning the dismissal of his petition for certiorari. Petitioner
argues that under the rules, a judgment for support which is subject of an appeal cannot be executed
absent any good reason for its immediate execution. Petitioner likewise attacks the validity of the writ
asserting that it was issued in violation of his right to notice and hearing. Petitioner also seeks the
setting aside of the default order and the judgment rendered thereafter for the reason that should he
be allowed to prove his defense of adultery, the claim of support would be most likely denied. Petitioner
claims that in an action by a child against his putative father, adultery of the child's mother would be a
valid defense to show that the child is a fruit of adulterous relations for, in such case, it would not be the
child of the defendant and therefore not entitled to support.

ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court and the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in
issuing the writ of execution?