G.R. No. 180802 - IN RE: Petition for cancellation and correction of entries in the records of birth, Rita K. Lee, et al. vs. Emma Lee and the civil registrar for the City of Caloocan

Petitioners: 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—siblings claiming common paternity under Tek Sheng Lee.
Respondents: Emma Lee—named on her birth certificate as daughter of Tek Sheng Lee and Keh Shiok Cheng—and the Civil Registrar of Caloocan City.

Alleged scheme: Petitioners allege that, without Keh Shiok Cheng’s knowledge, Tek Sheng Lee introduced a young mistress, Tiu Chuan, from China; Tiu bore eight children including Emma, but their births were recorded under Shiok Cheng’s name.
NBI investigation: A National Bureau of Investigation report noted age discrepancies between the recorded mother (Shiok Cheng) and the ages at childbirth, suggesting the actual mother was “a much younger woman, most probably Tiu Chuan.”
Conduct and presumption: Emma consistently represented Keh Shiok Cheng as her mother in official and private transactions; no direct denial of paternity or maternity by Tek Sheng or Shiok Cheng until petitioners’ actions decades later.

Rule 108 Petitions (1992 & 1993): Petitioners filed special proceedings in Manila and Caloocan under Rule 108, seeking cancellation of Shiok Cheng’s name and substitution with Tiu Chuan on Emma’s birth records.
Trial court rulings: RTCs denied motions to dismiss; permitted petitions to proceed but later denied petitioners’ motions for DNA testing as fishing expeditions lacking prima facie proof of filiation.
Appeals and Supreme Court review: Court of Appeals affirmed denial of DNA testing; petitioners filed a Rule 45 petition before the Supreme Court challenging both the denial of DNA testing and the propriety of the Rule 108 proceedings.

Whether a petition under Rule 108 may be used to collaterally attack or repudiate a child’s filiation as shown in a birth certificate.
Whether petitioners, having failed to present prima facie evidence of Emma’s maternal relation with Tiu Chuan, are entitled to DNA testing under the Rule on DNA Evidence or the discovery provisions of Rule 28.