Case Digest (G.R. No. 180802)
Facts:
In Re: Petition for Cancellation and Correction of Entries in the Records of Birth, G.R. No. 180802, August 01, 2022, Supreme Court Second Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are Rita K. Lee, Leoncio Lee Tek Sheng, Rosa K. Lee‑Vanderlek, Melody K. Lee‑Chin, Lucia Lee‑Tek Sheng‑Ong, Julian K. Lee, Henry K. Lee, Martin K. Lee, Victoriano K. Lee, Natividad K. Lee‑Miguel, and Thomas K. Lee (collectively, Rita et al.); respondents are Emma Lee and the Civil Registrar for the City of Caloocan. The Court reviewed on certiorari under Rule 45 the Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution in CA‑G.R. SP No. 90078 that affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan’s denial of a motion to conduct DNA testing.The controversy began with two petitions under Rule 108 (special proceedings for cancellation/correction of civil‑registry entries). Rita et al. first filed a Rule 108 petition in the RTC, Manila (docketed SP. PROC. NO. 92‑63692) and later another in the RTC, Caloocan (docketed SP. PROC. NO. C‑1674, filed February 3, 1993). Those petitions sought to delete the name “Keh Shiok Cheng” as mother in the birth records of certain persons (including respondent Emma) and substitute instead the name of Tiu Chuan (Tiu), whom petitioners alleged was the true mother of Emma and other siblings. Birth records, hospital records, and an NBI report supplied the factual core for petitioners’ claims.
Respondents (those listing Shiok Cheng as mother) moved to dismiss the Rule 108 petitions as an improper collateral attack on legitimacy/filiation and as time‑barred. The trial courts denied the motions to dismiss. Rita et al.’s petitions survived an initial appellate challenge; this Court earlier denied a Rule 45 petition in Lee v. Court of Appeals (2001), sustaining the lower courts’ denial of motions to dismiss and finding Rule 108 could be an appropriate remedy in the procedural posture then presented.
During the Caloocan proceedings, on July 8, 2003 petitioners moved to compel DNA testing of Emma and Tiu under Rule 28, Secs. 1–2 (physical examination) and relevant rules on DNA evidence. The RTC (Branch 131) denied the motion on September 8, 2003 as a “fishing expedition” for lack of evidence connecting Emma to Tiu; the denial was sustained on reconsideration. Petitioners also sought an ex parte subpoena to compel Tiu’s testimony; the subpoena was quashed by the RTC but the Court of Appeals later set the quashal aside, and this Court in Lee (2010) held Tiu was not protected by parental/filial privilege.
Petitioners then filed a certiorari petition to the Court of Appeals challenging the RTC’s denial of DNA testing; the Court of Ap...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May a petitioner collaterally impugn a child’s filiation or legitimacy through a Rule 108 petition for cancellation or correction of entries in the civil register?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in sustaining the Regional Trial Court’s denial of petitioners’ motion to conduct DNA testing of Emma and Tiu where petitioners relied on documentary and testimonial evidence?
- Does the doctrine of the law of the case (as reflected in this Court’s prior Lee rulings) preclude the Cour...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)