12/7/2016

G.R.No.177861

SECONDDIVISION

INRE:PETITIONFORCANCELLATIONG.R.No.177861
ANDCORRECTIONOFENTRIESINTHE
RECORDOFBIRTH,

EMMAK.LEE,Present:
Petitioner,
CARPIO,J.,Chairperson,
versusABAD,
VILLARAMA,JR.,*
PEREZ,**and
MENDOZA,JJ.
COURTOFAPPEALS,RITAK.LEE,
LEONCIOK.LEE,LUCIAK.LEEONG,
JULIANK.LEE,MARTINK.LEE,
ROSALEEVANDERLEK,MELODY
LEECHIN,HENRYK.LEE,NATIVIDAD
LEEMIGUEL,VICTORIANOK.LEE,
andTHOMASK.LEE,representedbyPromulgated:
RITAK.LEE,asAttorneyinFact,
Respondents.July13,2010

xx

DECISION

ABAD,J.:

Thiscaseisaboutthegroundsforquashingasubpoenaadtestificandum and a parents

rightnottotestifyinacaseagainsthischildren.

TheFactsandtheCase

SpousesLeeTekSheng(Lee)andKehShiokCheng(Keh)enteredthePhilippinesinthe1930sas
immigrants from China. They had 11 children, namely, Rita K. Lee, Leoncio K. Lee, Lucia K.
LeeOng, Julian K. Lee, Martin K. Lee, Rosa LeeVanderlek, Melody LeeChin, Henry K. Lee,

Natividad LeeMiguel, Victoriano K. Lee, and Thomas K. Lee (collectively, the LeeKeh
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/177861.htm

1/7

12/7/2016

G.R.No.177861
Natividad LeeMiguel, Victoriano K. Lee, and
Thomas K. Lee (collectively, the LeeKeh

children).

In1948,LeebroughtfromChinaayoungwomannamedTiuChuan(Tiu),supposedlyto
serve as housemaid. The respondent LeeKeh children believe that Tiu left the LeeKeh
household,movedintoanotherpropertyofLeenearby,andhadarelationwithhim.

ShortlyafterKehdiedin1989,theLeeKehchildrenlearnedthatTiuschildrenwithLee
(collectively, the Lees other children) claimed that they, too, were children of Lee and Keh.
ThispromptedtheLeeKehchildrentorequesttheNationalBureauofInvestigation(NBI)to
investigatethematter.Afterconductingsuchaninvestigation,theNBIconcludedinitsreport:

[I]t is very obvious that the mother of these 8 children is certainly not KEH SHIOK
CHENG, but a much younger woman, most probably TIU CHUAN. Upon further
evaluationandanalysisbytheseAgents,LEETEKSHENGisinaquandaryinfixingthe
age ofKEHSHIOK CHENG possibly to conform with his grand design ofmakinghis8
children as their own legitimate children, consequently elevating the status of his second
family and secure their future. The doctor lamented that this complaint would not have
been necessary had not the father and his second family kept on insisting that the 8
[1]
childrenarethelegitimatechildrenofKEHSHIOKCHENG.

The NBI found, for example, that in the hospital records, the eldest of the Lees other
children,MarceloLee(whowasrecordedasthe12thchildofLeeandKeh),wasbornofa17
yearold mother, when Keh was already 38 years old at the time. Another of the Lees other
children,MarianoLee,wasbornofa23yearoldmother,whenKehwasthenalready40years
old, and so forth. In other words, by the hospital records of the Lees other children, Kehs
declaredagedidnotcoincidewithheractualagewhenshesupposedlygavebirthtosuchother
children,numberingeight.

Onthebasisofthisreport,therespondentLeeKehchildrenfiledtwoseparatepetitions,
[2]
oneofthembeforetheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofCaloocanCity inSpecialProceeding
C1674 for the deletion from the certificate of live birth of the petitioner Emma Lee, one of
Leesotherchildren,thenameKehandreplacethesamewiththenameTiutoindicatehertrue
mothersname.

In April 2005 the LeeKeh children filed with the RTC an ex parte request for the
issuanceofasubpoenaadtestificandumtocompelTiu,EmmaLeespresumedmother,totestify
inthecase.TheRTCgrantedthemotionbutTiumovedtoquashthesubpoena,claimingthatit
wasoppressiveandviolatedSection25,Rule130oftheRulesofCourt,theruleonparental
[3]
privilege, she being Emma Lees stepmother. On August 5, 2005 the RTC quashed the
subpoenaitissuedforbeingunreasonableandoppressiveconsideringthatTiuwasalreadyvery

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/177861.htm

2/7

12/7/2016

G.R.No.177861

subpoenaitissuedforbeingunreasonableandoppressiveconsideringthatTiuwasalreadyvery
oldandthattheobviousobjectofthesubpoenawastobadgerherintoadmittingthatshewas
EmmaLeesmother.

BecausetheRTCdeniedtheLeeKehchildrensmotionforreconsideration,theyfileda
specialcivilactionofcertioraribeforetheCourtofAppeals(CA)inCAG.R.SP92555.On
[4]
December 29, 2006 the CA rendered a decision, setting aside the RTCs August 5, 2005
Order.TheCAruledthatonlyasubpoenaducestecum,notasubpoenaadtestificandum, may
bequashedforbeingoppressiveorunreasonableunderSection4,Rule21oftheRulesofCivil
Procedure. The CA also held that Tius advanced age alone does not render her incapable of
testifying.Thepartyseekingtoquashthesubpoenaforthatreasonmustprovethatshewould
beunabletowithstandtherigorsoftrial,somethingthatpetitionerEmmaLeefailedtodo.

Since the CA denied Emma Lees motion for reconsideration by resolution of May 8,
[5]
2007, shefiledthepresentpetitionwiththisCourt.

TheQuestionPresented

TheonlyquestionpresentedinthiscaseiswhetherornottheCAerredinrulingthatthe
trial court may compel Tiu to testify in the correction of entry case that respondent LeeKeh
childrenfiledforthecorrectionofthecertificateofbirthofpetitionerEmmaLeetoshowthat
sheisnotKehsdaughter.

TheRulingoftheCourt

Petitioner Emma Lee claims that the RTC correctly quashed the subpoena ad
testificandumitissuedagainstTiuonthegroundthatitwasunreasonableandoppressive,given
the likelihood that the latter would be badgered on oral examination concerning the LeeKeh
childrenstheorythatshehadillicitrelationwithLeeandgavebirthtotheotherLeechildren.

But,astheCAcorrectlyruled,thegroundscitedunreasonableandoppressiveareproper
forsubpoenaadducestecumorfortheproductionofdocumentsandthingsinthepossessionof
thewitness,acommandthathasatendencytoinfringeontherightagainstinvasionofprivacy.
Section4,Rule21oftheRulesofCivilProcedure,thusprovides:

SECTION4.Quashingasubpoena.Thecourtmayquashasubpoenaducestecum
uponmotionpromptlymadeand,inanyevent,atorbeforethetimespecifiedthereinifit
is unreasonable and oppressive, or the relevancy of the books, documents or things does
not appear, or if the person in whose behalf the subpoena is issued fails to advance the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/177861.htm

3/7

12/7/2016

G.R.No.177861

not appear, or if the person in whose behalf the subpoena is issued fails to advance the
reasonablecostoftheproductionthereof.

[6]
Notably,theCourtpreviouslydecidedintherelatedcaseofLeev.CourtofAppeals
that the LeeKeh children have the right to file the action for correction of entries in the
certificatesofbirthofLeesotherchildren,EmmaLeeincluded.TheCourtrecognizedthatthe
ultimateobjectofthesuitwastoestablishthefactthatLeesotherchildrenwerenotchildrenof
Keh.Thus:

It is precisely the province of a special proceeding such as the one outlined under
Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court to establish the status or right of a party, or a
particularfact. The petitions filed by private respondents for the correction of entries in
the petitioners' records of birth were intended to establish that for physical and/or
biological reasons it was impossible for Keh Shiok Cheng to have conceived and given
birthtothepetitionersasshownintheirbirthrecords.Contrarytopetitioners'contention
that the petitions before the lower courts were actually actions to impugn legitimacy, the
prayer therein is not to declare that petitioners are illegitimate children of Keh Shiok
Cheng, but to establish that the former are not the latter's children. There is nothing to
[7]
impugn as there is no blood relation at all between Keh Shiok Cheng and petitioners.
(Underscoringsupplied)

Taking in mind the ultimate purpose of the LeeKeh childrens action, obviously, they
would want Tiu to testify or admit that she is the mother of Lees other children, including
petitionerEmmaLee.KehhaddiedandsocouldnotgivetestimonythatLeesotherchildren
were not hers. The LeeKeh children have, therefore, a legitimate reason for seeking Tius
testimonyand,normally,theRTCcannotdeprivethemoftheirrighttocompeltheattendance
ofsuchamaterialwitness.

But petitioner Emma Lee raises two other objections to requiringTiu to come to court
and testify: a) considering her advance age, testifying in court would subject her to harsh
physicalandemotionalstressesandb)itwouldviolateherparentalrightnottobecompelled
totestifyagainstherstepdaughter.

1.RegardingthephysicalandemotionalpunishmentthatwouldbeinflictedonTiuifshe
werecompelledatherageandconditiontocometocourttotestify,petitionerEmmaLeemust
establishthisclaimtothesatisfactionofthetrialcourt.Aboutfiveyearshavepassedfromthe
timetheLeeKehchildrensoughttheissuanceofasubpoenaforTiutoappearbeforethetrial
court. The RTC would have to update itself and determine if Tius current physical condition
makesherfittoundergotheordealofcomingtocourtandbeingquestioned.Ifsheisfit,she
mustobeythesubpoenaissuedtoher.

Tiu has no need to worry that the oral examination might subject her to badgering by
adversecounsel.Thetrialcourtsdutyistoprotecteverywitnessagainstoppressivebehaviorof
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/177861.htm

[8]

4/7

12/7/2016

G.R.No.177861

[8]
anexaminerandthisisespeciallytruewherethewitnessisofadvancedage.

2. Tiu claimed before the trial court the right not to testify against her stepdaughter,
petitionerEmmaLee,invokingSection25,Rule130oftheRulesofEvidence,whichreads:

SECTION25.Parentalandfilialprivilege.Nopersonmaybecompelledtotestify
againsthisparents,otherdirectascendants,childrenorotherdirectdescendants.

TheaboveisanadaptationfromasimilarprovisioninArticle315oftheCivilCodethat
applies only in criminal cases. But those who revised the Rules of Civil Procedure chose to
extend the prohibition to all kinds of actions, whether civil, criminal, or administrative, filed
againstparentsandotherdirectascendantsordescendants.

But here Tiu, who invokes the filial privilege, claims that she is the stepmother of
petitionerEmmaLee.Theprivilegecannotapplytothembecausetheruleappliesonlytodirect
ascendantsanddescendants,afamilytieconnectedbyacommonancestry.Astepdaughterhas
nocommonancestrybyherstepmother.Article965thusprovides:

Art.965.Thedirectlineiseitherdescendingorascending.Theformerunitestheheadof
the family with those who descend from him.The latter binds a person with those from
whomhedescends.

Consequently,TiucanbecompelledtotestifyagainstpetitionerEmmaLee.

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the decision and
resolutionoftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SP92555.

SOORDERED.

ROBERTOA.ABAD
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

ANTONIOT.CARPIO

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/177861.htm

5/7

12/7/2016

G.R.No.177861

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice

MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

JOSECATRALMENDOZA
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethe
casewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,SecondDivision

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairpersons
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice
*DesignatedasadditionalmemberinlieuofAssociateJusticeDiosdadoM.Peralta,perSpecialOrderNo.858datedJuly1,2010.
**DesignatedasadditionalmemberinlieuofAssociateJusticeAntonioEduardoB.Nachura,perSpecialOrderNo.863datedJuly
5,2010.
[1]
Rollo,pp.1314.
[2]
Branch131.
[3]
Sec.25.Parentalandfilialprivilege.Nopersonmaybecompelledtotestifyagainsthisparents,otherdirectascendants,children
orotherdirectdescendants.
[4]
Rollo, pp. 923 Opinion of then Presiding Justice Ruben T. Reyes (now a retiredAssociate Justice of the Court), with the
concurrenceofAssociateJusticesJuanQ.Enriquez,Jr.andVicenteS.E.Veloso.
[5]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/177861.htm

6/7

12/7/2016

G.R.No.177861

[5]
Id.at2526.
[6]
419Phil.392(2001).
[7]
Id.at404405.
[8]
Sec.3.Rightsandobligationsofawitness.Awitnessmustanswerquestions,althoughhisanswermaytendtoestablishaclaim
againsthim.However,itistherightofawitness:xxx(2)Nottobedetainedlongerthantheinterestsofjusticerequire(3)Notto
beexaminedexceptonlyastomatterspertinenttotheissuexxx.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/177861.htm

7/7