Case Digest (G.R. No. 183445)
Facts:
In 639 Phil. 78 (G.R. No. 177861, July 13, 2010), Emma K. Lee petitioned the Supreme Court for review of the Court of Appeals’ decision affirming the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City’s order quashing a subpoena ad testificandum issued to compel Tiu Chuan to testify in a special proceeding (SPC C-1674) for the correction of entries in Emma’s certificate of live birth. The controversy arose after the death of Keh Shiok Cheng in 1989 when the eleven children of Lee Tek Sheng and Keh (the “Lee-Keh children”) discovered that eight additional children, including Emma, purportedly registered as children of Lee and Keh, had birth records reflecting maternal ages inconsistent with Keh’s true age. An NBI investigation concluded that Tiu, not Keh, was the biological mother of the eight children. Thereupon, the Lee-Keh children filed two petitions before the RTC to delete Keh’s name from the civil registry entries of Lee’s other children and replace it with “Tiu.” In April 2005,Case Digest (G.R. No. 183445)
Facts:
- Parties and Genealogical Background
- Lee Tek Sheng and Keh Shiok Cheng, Chinese immigrants who settled in the Philippines in the 1930s, had eleven children (the “Lee-Keh children”): Rita K., Leoncio K., Lucia K.-Ong, Julian K., Martin K., Rosa V., Melody C., Henry K., Natividad M., Victoriano K., and Thomas K.
- In 1948, Lee brought Tiu Chuan from China as a housemaid. Eventually, Tiu bore eight children by Lee (the “Lee’s other children”), including Marcelo, Mariano, and Emma K. Lee.
- NBI Investigation and Judicial Proceedings
- After Keh’s death in 1989, the Lee-Keh children learned that Tiu’s children claimed Lee as their father. They requested an NBI probe, which concluded that Tiu, not Keh, was the mother of the eight children based on hospital records (e.g., age discrepancies between Keh and the mothers recorded in the births of Marcelo and Mariano).
- The Lee-Keh children filed Special Proceeding C-1674 in the RTC of Caloocan to correct Emma Lee’s birth certificate—deleting “Keh Shiok Cheng” as mother and inserting “Tiu Chuan.” They secured a subpoena ad testificandum to compel Tiu’s appearance. Tiu moved to quash, citing oppressive character and Section 25, Rule 130 (parental privilege).
- The RTC (Aug 5, 2005) quashed the subpoena as oppressive given Tiu’s advanced age. The CA (Dec 29, 2006) reversed, holding that only subpoenas duces tecum may be quashed for oppression under Section 4, Rule 21, and that Tiu’s age alone does not prove incapacity. Emma Lee’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting the present petition to the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the trial court may compel Tiu Chuan to testify in the correction-of-entry proceeding (Special Proceeding C-1674) to prove that Emma K. Lee is not the daughter of Keh Shiok Cheng.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)