G.R. No. L-83942 December 29, 1988
Romeo S. Amurao, petitioner, vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and Romuel Jerome Buenaventura, represented by her natural mother and guardian ad litem Fe Rosario Buenaventura, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Romeo Amurao was sued for support by Romuel Jerome Buenaventura, a minor claiming to be his illegitimate child. Amurao denied paternity. At trial, the parties, upon the trial court’s initiative, entered into an agreement embodied in a September 26, 1977 order. They stipulated to submit to an NBI blood-grouping test, agreeing that a finding that the child “may be” Amurao’s offspring would result in his admission of paternity, with trial to proceed only on the amount of support; a negative finding would lead to dismissal. The NBI report concluded the child was a “possible offspring” of Amurao. Subsequently, Amurao challenged the validity of the order, but his petition to the Supreme Court was denied.
At a hearing on a contempt motion for failure to pay support pendente lite, both parties presented evidence on Amurao’s capacity to provide support. The case was later set for trial on the main issue, but Amurao and his counsel failed to appear. The trial court thus considered the case submitted for decision based on the evidence on record, which included the NBI report and the financial evidence from the contempt hearing. It ruled for the minor, ordering support. The Court of Appeals affirmed but increased the support amount and ordered arrears.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in: (1) finding Amurao admitted paternity and is thus obligated to give support; (2) upholding the trial court’s decision based partly on evidence from the contempt hearing; (3) increasing the support; and (4) its application of the Civil Code provisions on support.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The issues raised are factual and thus not reviewable under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The determination that Amurao admitted paternity under the binding September 26, 1977 order, based on the NBI finding that the child was his “possible offspring,” is a factual finding conclusive upon this Court. Similarly, the assessment of the amount of support, including its increase by the appellate court, is a factual matter grounded on the child’s needs and the father’s capacity, as evidenced by the financial documents presented.
The Court held it was proper for the trial court to consider the evidence presented during the contempt hearing as evidence on the merits. The parties had already presented their proof on Amurao’s financial capability, and by failing to appear at the subsequent trial, Amurao waived his right to present additional evidence and cannot now claim a denial of due process. Finally, the increase in support is justified under Articles 290, 296, and 297 of the Civil Code, which allow for modification based on the child’s increasing needs and the parent’s resources. No reversible error was found in the appellate court’s decision.