Case Summary (G.R. No. 83942)
Parties, Claims, and Governing Legal Issues
Petitioner denied paternity and refused to provide support. The minor-plaintiff, represented by his natural mother and guardian ad litem, pressed for support. At the trial’s commencement on July 25, 1977, the trial court sought to narrow the issues through a conference in chambers, resulting in a stipulation that the parties would submit to an NBI blood-grouping test and bind themselves to its outcome. In substance, the stipulation conditioned petitioner’s obligation on the NBI’s findings regarding possible paternity. The subsequent controversy centered on whether petitioner had, through the stipulation and its implementation, admitted paternity and thereby became bound to support the child, as well as the proper amount of support and the correct legal provisions applicable under the Civil Code.
Trial Court Proceedings and the NBI Blood-Grouping Agreement
When the case was called for trial on the morning of July 25, 1977, the parties jointly moved for a conference in chambers. After the conference, the parties agreed to submit themselves to a blood-grouping test before the NBI to determine the plaintiff’s paternity, and they further agreed to be bound by the government agency’s results. The stipulation, embodied in the trial court’s order of September 26, 1977, provided that if the NBI finding indicated that the plaintiff may be the offspring of defendant, then paternity would be admitted and the case would proceed only on the issue of amount of support. Conversely, if the finding was negative, the case would be dismissed without further trial. Pursuant to that order, the trial court directed the minor-plaintiff, the natural mother, and defendant to submit to the blood-grouping test before the NBI on or before October 17, 1977.
The NBI later submitted its report, Report No. 77-100 dated October 17, 1977, stating that the child was a possible offspring of petitioner with the natural mother. On September 26, 1978, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the September 26, 1977 order, impugning its validity. The trial court denied the motion, prompting petitioner to seek review by certiorari through G.R. No. 51407. That petition was denied by the Supreme Court on May 4, 1980.
Contempt Motion, Evidence on Capability to Support, and Setting of Main Trial
Subsequently, the minor’s representative filed a motion to declare petitioner in contempt of court for failure to pay support pendente lite. At the contempt hearing, the parties presented evidence addressing petitioner’s capability to give support. After that hearing, the case was set for trial on July 8, 1983, with due notice to both parties, specifically for the petitioner’s presentation of further evidence in the main case. Neither petitioner nor his counsel appeared at the July 8, 1983 hearing. The trial court then declared the case submitted for decision.
On August 8, 1985, the trial court rendered judgment ordering petitioner to pay the former support of P500 per month, plus attorney’s fees of P3,000, and costs.
Court of Appeals Review and Increased Support
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. CV 07645. On March 7, 1988, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment with modification. It increased the support fixed by the trial court to One Thousand Five Hundred (P1,500.00) Pesos, payable within the first five days of each month at the plaintiff’s residence. The Court of Appeals likewise ordered petitioner to pay support pendente lite of P200.00 in arrears from October 1978 up to the termination of the appeal, and it assessed costs against petitioner.
Issues Raised on Review by the Supreme Court
Before the Supreme Court, petitioner assigned errors including the Court of Appeals’: (a) finding that petitioner had admitted paternity under the September 26, 1977 trial court order, thus entitling the minor to support; (b) upholding of the trial court’s decision based on the evidence presented during the contempt motion hearing, including petitioner’s balance sheets, audit reports, and admissions regarding income; (c) increase in the amount of support; and (d) application of Article 290 of the Civil Code instead of Articles 290 and 297 of the same Code.
The Supreme Court noted that the first, second, third, and fourth issues were factual in nature, and thus generally outside its review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. It nevertheless addressed the sufficiency of the trial court’s treatment of the contempt hearing evidence and the procedural effect of petitioner’s absence at the main trial.
Supreme Court Ruling on Procedural and Substantive Matters
The Supreme Court held that whether petitioner made an admission of paternity under the terms of the September 26, 1977 order—thereby binding him to support—was a finding of fact. Similarly, the determination of the amount of support payable to the minor was factual. The Court further ruled that it was proper for the trial court to consider the evidence presented at the contempt motion hearing “against the defendant” as evidence “also on the merits of the main case.” The Court reasoned that the parties were not required to repeat the same evidentiary submissions “all over again,” and it treated petitioner’s failure to appear at the July 8, 1983 hearing as a waiver of the right to adduce additional evidence. Because petitioner did not appear despite due notice, the Court held that he could not complain that he was denied due process.
As to the propriety of the increased support amount, the Supreme Court again treated the issue as factual—particularly the question whether a minor who brought the action in 1977 at about five
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 83942)
- The petitioner, Romeo S. Amurao, was sued for support by the private respondent minor, Romuel Jerome Buenaventura, through his natural mother and guardian ad litem, Fe Rosario Buenaventura.
- The respondents argued that the petitioner was the father of the minor and must therefore provide support.
- The petitioner denied paternity and refused to give support.
- The petition sought review of the Court of Appeals judgment affirming the trial court’s award of support and increasing the support amounts.
Parties and Procedural Posture
- The private respondent minor filed a support action against the petitioner for support arising from alleged illicit relations.
- At trial, the case resulted in an agreed procedure to determine paternity through blood-grouping tests by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).
- The petitioner’s challenge to the trial court’s order was brought to the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari (G.R. No. 51407), which the Court denied on May 4, 1980.
- After a contempt proceeding initiated by the private respondent minor due to the petitioner’s failure to pay support pendente lite, the trial court proceeded to trial on the main case.
- The trial court rendered judgment on August 8, 1985, awarding support to the minor and ordering payment of attorney’s fees and costs.
- The petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. CV 07645), which affirmed the judgment but increased the support to P1,500.00 monthly and ordered additional support pendente lite.
- The petitioner filed a further petition alleging multiple errors attributed to both the trial court and the Court of Appeals.
- The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit and held the decision immediately executory.
Key Factual Allegations
- The support suit stemmed from the petitioner’s alleged paternity of a child born to a nineteen-year old college student at the time of conception.
- The petitioner denied paternity and refused to give support to the minor.
- During the trial scheduled for July 25, 1977, the trial court facilitated a last-minute conference in chambers to simplify the issues.
- The parties agreed to subject themselves to blood-grouping tests before the NBI to determine the minor’s paternity.
- The agreement provided that if the NBI finding would allow the minor to be the plaintiff’s offspring, then paternity would be admitted and the trial would proceed only on the issue of the amount of support; if negative, the case would be dismissed without further trial.
- After the NBI report dated October 17, 1977, the NBI reported that the child was a “possible offspring” of the alleged father.
- Exactly one year later, on September 26, 1978, the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the trial court’s September 26, 1977 order impugning its validity, which the trial court denied.
- The petitioner then pursued certiorari, which the Supreme Court denied on May 4, 1980.
- The private respondent minor later filed a contempt motion for the petitioner’s failure to pay support pendente lite.
- During the contempt hearing, evidence was presented on the petitioner’s capability to provide support.
- At the subsequent hearing on the main case scheduled for July 8, 1983, the petitioner and his counsel did not appear despite due notice.
- The trial court declared the case submitted for decision and thereafter awarded support by August 8, 1985.
- The Court of Appeals increased the support to P1,500.00 and ordered support pendente lite of P200.00 in arrears from October 1978 up to the termination of the appeal.
- On further review, the petitioner challenged the alleged admission of paternity, the evidentiary basis of the decision, the increase in support, and the application of the Civil Code provisions.
Agreed NBI Blood Tests
- The trial court order of September 26, 1977 embodied the parties’ agreement that the matter of paternity would be determined through NBI blood-grouping tests.
- The trial court ordered the minor, the natural mother, and the defendant petitioner to submit to the blood-grouping test before the NBI on or before October 17, 1977.
- The parties agreed to be bound by the NBI results in a specific conditional manner affecting both paternity and the scope of the subsequent trial.
- The NBI issued Report No. 77-100 dated October 17, 1977, stating that the child was a possible offspring of the alleged father with the natural mother.
- The Supreme Court treated the petitioner’s compliance with and binding effect of the agreed NBI procedure as a key framework for resolving entitlement to support.
Contempt Motion Proceedings
- The private respondent minor filed a contempt motion after the petitioner failed to pay support pendente lite.
- The parties presented evidence on the petitioner’s capability to provide supp