Supreme Court of the Philippines

639 Phil. 78

SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 177861, July 13, 2010
IN RE: PETITION FOR CANCELLATION AND CORRECTION
OF ENTRIES IN THE RECORD OF BIRTH, EMMA K. LEE,
PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, RITA K. LEE,
LEONCIO K. LEE, LUCIA K. LEE-ONG, JULIAN K. LEE,
MARTIN K. LEE, ROSA LEE-VANDERLEK, MELODY LEE-
CHIN, HENRY K. LEE, NATIVIDAD LEE-MIGUEL,
VICTORIANO K. LEE, AND THOMAS K. LEE, REPRESENTED
BY RITA K. LEE, AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, RESPONDENTS.

DECISION

ABAD, J.:

This case is about the grounds for quashing a subpoena ad

testificandum and a parent's right not to testify in a case
against his children.

The Facts and the Case

Spouses Lee Tek Sheng (Lee) and Keh Shiok Cheng (Keh)
entered the Philippines in the 1930s as immigrants from
China. They had 11 children, namely, Rita K. Lee, Leoncio K.
Lee, Lucia K. Lee-Ong, Julian K. Lee, Martin K. Lee, Rosa
Lee-Vanderlek, Melody Lee-Chin, Henry K. Lee, Natividad
Lee-Miguel, Victoriano K. Lee, and Thomas K. Lee
(collectively, the Lee-Keh children).

In 1948, Lee brought from China a young woman named Tiu

Chuan (Tiu), supposedly to serve as housemaid. The
respondent Lee-Keh children believe that Tiu left the Lee-
Keh household, moved into another property of Lee nearby,
and had a relation with him.

Shortly after Keh died in 1989, the Lee-Keh children learned

that Tiu's children with Lee (collectively, the Lee's other
children) claimed that they, too, were children of Lee and
Keh. This prompted the Lee-Keh children to request the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to investigate the
matter. After conducting such an investigation, the NBI
concluded in its report:

[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 evaluation and analysis by these Agents, LEE
TEK SHENG is in a quandary in fixing the age of KEH
SHIOK CHENG possibly to conform with his grand
design of making his 8 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 children are the legitimate
children of KEH SHIOK CHENG.[1]

The NBI found, for example, that in the hospital records, the
eldest of the Lee's other children, Marcelo Lee (who was
recorded as the 12th child of Lee and Keh), was born of a 17-
year-old mother, when Keh was already 38 years old at the
time. Another of the Lee's other children, Mariano Lee, was
born of a 23-year-old mother, when Keh was then already 40
years old, and so forth. In other words, by the hospital
records of the Lee's other children, Keh's declared age did
not coincide with her actual age when she supposedly gave
birth to such other children, numbering eight.
On the basis of this report, the respondent Lee-Keh children
filed two separate petitions, one of them before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City[2] in Special Proceeding C-
1674 for the deletion from the certificate of live birth of the
petitioner Emma Lee, one of Lee's other children, the name
Keh and replace the same with the name Tiu to indicate her
true mother's name.

In April 2005 the Lee-Keh children filed with the RTC an ex

parte request for the issuance of a subpoena ad
testificandum to compel Tiu, Emma Lee's presumed mother,
to testify in the case. The RTC granted the motion but Tiu
moved to quash the subpoena, claiming that it was
oppressive and violated Section 25, Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court, the rule on parental privilege, she being Emma Lee's
stepmother.[3] On August 5, 2005 the RTC quashed the
subpoena it issued for being unreasonable and oppressive
considering that Tiu was already very old and that the
obvious object of the subpoena was to badger her into
admitting that she was Emma Lee's mother.

Because the RTC denied the Lee-Keh children's motion for

reconsideration, they filed a special civil action of certiorari
before the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP 92555. On
December 29, 2006 the CA rendered a decision,[4] setting
aside the RTC's August 5, 2005 Order. The CA ruled that
only a subpoena duces tecum, not a subpoena ad
testificandum, may be quashed for being oppressive or
unreasonable under Section 4, Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure. The CA also held that Tiu's advanced age alone
does not render her incapable of testifying. The party
seeking to quash the subpoena for that reason must prove
that she would be unable to withstand the rigors of trial,
something that petitioner Emma Lee failed to do.

Since the CA denied Emma Lee's motion for reconsideration

by resolution of May 8, 2007,[5] she filed the present petition
with this Court.

The Question Presented

The only question presented in this case is whether or not

the CA erred in ruling that the trial court may compel Tiu to
testify in the correction of entry case that respondent Lee-
Keh children filed for the correction of the certificate of birth
of petitioner Emma Lee to show that she is not Keh's
daughter.

The Ruling of the Court

Petitioner Emma Lee claims that the RTC correctly quashed

the subpoena ad testificandum it issued against Tiu on the
ground that it was unreasonable and oppressive, given the
likelihood that the latter would be badgered on oral
examination concerning the Lee-Keh children's theory that
she had illicit relation with Lee and gave birth to the other
Lee children.

But, as the CA correctly ruled, the grounds cited--

unreasonable and oppressive--are proper for subpoena ad
duces tecum or for the production of documents and things
in the possession of the witness, a command that has a
tendency to infringe on the right against invasion of privacy.
Section 4, Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, thus
provides:

SECTION 4. Quashing a subpoena. -- The court may

quash a subpoena duces tecum upon motion promptly
made and, in any event, at or before the time specified
therein if it 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 reasonable cost of the
production thereof.

Notably, the Court previously decided in the related case of

Lee v. Court of Appeals[6] that the Lee-Keh children have the
right to file the action for correction of entries in the
certificates of birth of Lee's other children, Emma Lee
included. The Court recognized that the ultimate object of
the suit was to establish the fact that Lee's other children
were not children of 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 particular fact. 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 birth to the petitioners as shown in their birth
records. Contrary to petitioners' 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 impugn as
there is no blood relation at all between Keh Shiok
Cheng and petitioners.[7] (Underscoring supplied)

Taking in mind the ultimate purpose of the Lee-Keh

children's action, obviously, they would want Tiu to testify or
admit that she is the mother of Lee's other children,
including petitioner Emma Lee. Keh had died and so could
not give testimony that Lee's other children were not hers.
The Lee-Keh children have, therefore, a legitimate reason for
seeking Tiu's testimony and, normally, the RTC cannot
deprive them of their right to compel the attendance of such
a material witness.

But petitioner Emma Lee raises two other objections to

requiring Tiu to come to court and testify: a) considering her
advance age, testifying in court would subject her to harsh
physical and emotional stresses; and b) it would violate her
parental right not to be compelled to testify against her
stepdaughter.

1. Regarding the physical and emotional punishment that

would be inflicted on Tiu if she were compelled at her age
and condition to come to court to testify, petitioner Emma
Lee must establish this claim to the satisfaction of the trial
court. About five years have passed from the time the Lee-
Keh children sought the issuance of a subpoena for Tiu to
appear before the trial court. The RTC would have to update
itself and determine if Tiu's current physical condition makes
her fit to undergo the ordeal of coming to court and being
questioned. If she is fit, she must obey the subpoena issued
to her.

Tiu has no need to worry that the oral examination might

subject her to badgering by adverse counsel. The trial
court's duty is to protect every witness against oppressive
behavior of an examiner and this is especially true where the
witness is of advanced age.[8]

2. Tiu claimed before the trial court the right not to testify
against her stepdaughter, petitioner Emma Lee, invoking
Section 25, Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence, which reads:

SECTION 25. Parental and filial privilege.- No person

may be compelled to testify against his parents, other
direct ascendants, children or other direct
descendants.

The above is an adaptation from a similar provision in Article

315 of the Civil Code that 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 against parents and other
direct ascendants or descendants.

But here Tiu, who invokes the filial privilege, claims that she
is the stepmother of petitioner Emma Lee. The privilege
cannot apply to them because the rule applies only to
"direct" ascendants and descendants, a family tie connected
by a common ancestry. A stepdaughter has no common
ancestry by her stepmother. Article 965 thus provides:

Art. 965. The direct line is either descending or

ascending. The former unites the head of the family
with those who descend from him. The latter binds a
person with those from whom he descends.

Consequently, Tiu can be compelled to testify against

petitioner Emma Lee.

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and

AFFIRMS the decision and resolution of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP 92555.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio, Villarama, Jr.,* Perez,** and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

*
Designated as additional member in lieu of Associate
Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, per Special Order No. 858
dated July 1, 2010.
**
Designated as additional member in lieu of Associate
Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, per Special Order No.
863 dated July 5, 2010.
[1]
Rollo, pp. 13-14.
[2]
Branch 131.

Sec. 25. Parental and filial privilege. -- No person may be

[3]

compelled to testify against his parents, other direct

ascendants, children or other direct descendants.

Rollo, pp. 9-23; Opinion of then Presiding Justice Ruben T.

[4]

Reyes (now a retired Associate Justice of the Court), with the

concurrence of Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and
Vicente S.E. Veloso.
[5]
Id. at 25-26.
[6]
419 Phil. 392 (2001).
[7]
Id. at 404-405.

Sec. 3. Rights and obligations of a witness. - A witness

[8]

must answer questions, although his answer may tend to

establish a claim against him. However, it is the right of a
witness: x x x (2) Not to be detained longer than the
interests of justice require; (3) Not to be examined except
only as to matters pertinent to the issue; x x x.

Copyright 2016 - Batas.org