Facts:
Romeo S. Amurao was sued for
support by the minor
Romuel Jerome Buenaventura, who was the offspring of the petitioner’s illicit relations with
Fe Rosario Buenaventura, a nineteen-year-old college student. The petitioner denied paternity and refused to provide support. At the commencement of the trial on
July 25, 1977, the trial court convened the parties and counsel in chambers to simplify the issues. The parties and their counsel then agreed, as embodied in the court’s
order of September 26, 1977, to submit to a
blood-grouping test before the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to determine the minor’s paternity, with the following binding effect: if the NBI finding was that the plaintiff might be the offspring of the defendant, paternity would be admitted and the case would proceed only on the issue of the
amount of support; if the finding was negative, the case would be dismissed without further trial. Accordingly, the court ordered submission for the test on or before
October 17, 1977. Based on the NBI report dated
October 17, 1977, the NBI found that the child was a possible offspring of the petitioner with the minor’s mother as the natural mother. Exactly one year later, on
September 26, 1978, the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration assailing the validity of the September 26, 1977 order, but it was denied. The petitioner then sought relief via
certiorari (G.R. No. 51407), which the Supreme Court denied on
May 4, 1980. Meanwhile, a motion to declare the petitioner in
contempt for failure to pay
support pendente lite was filed. At the hearing of that contempt motion, the parties presented evidence on the petitioner’s capability to give support. Thereafter, the main case was set for trial on
July 8, 1983 for the presentation of further evidence by the petitioner, but he and his counsel did not appear, and the trial court declared the case submitted for decision. On
August 8, 1985, the trial court rendered judgment ordering the petitioner to pay the former support of
P500 per month, plus
attorney’s fees of P3,000 and costs. The petitioner appealed, and the Court of Appeals, in
its decision of March 7, 1988,
affirmed the appealed judgment but increased support to
P1,500 per month, payable within the first five days of each month at the plaintiff’s residence, and ordered the petitioner to pay
support pendente lite of P200 in arrears from
October 1978 up to the termination of the appeal, with costs against the petitioner. The petitioner then filed a review petition, insisting that the Court of Appeals erred in finding that he had admitted paternity under the trial court’s order; in upholding the trial court’s reliance on evidence presented at the contempt hearing; in increasing the amount of support; and in applying
Article 290 rather than
Articles 290 and 297 of the Civil Code. The petition was denied, and the Court held the case to be without merit.
Issues:
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the trial court’s finding that the petitioner admitted paternity under the parties’ agreement and was thus liable to support the minor, in considering evidence from the contempt hearing in deciding the main case, in increasing the amount of support, and in applying the proper provisions of the Civil Code.
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: