G.R. No. 156448 - Spouses Andrada vs. Pilhino Sales Corp.

February 3, 1993: Petition for Cancellation and Correction of Birth Records filed in RTC Caloocan (Rule 108)
July 8, 2003: Motion for DNA testing filed
September 8, 2003: RTC Caloocan denies DNA testing motion
April 6, 2005: Reconsideration denied
June 19, 2007: Court of Appeals denies certiorari petition on DNA testing
August 1, 2022: Supreme Court issues final decision under the 1987 Constitution

1987 Philippine Constitution (privacy, due process)
Rules of Court, Rule 108 (correction of civil registry entries)
Rule on DNA Evidence (A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC), Section 4 (conditions for DNA testing order)
Family Code, Articles 171–172 (impugnment of legitimacy and proof of marital filiation)
Revised Penal Code, Art. 347; RA 8552 Sec. 21 (simulation of birth)
RA 11222 (Simulated Birth Rectification Act)

RTC Caloocan (Branch 131) denies petitioners’ DNA testing motion as a fishing expedition without prima facie evidence.
RTC refuses reconsideration.
Court of Appeals affirms the denial for lack of evidence linking Emma to Tiu Chuan.
Supreme Court en banc (2010) confirms Tiu is not privileged witness but does not grant DNA testing.
Petitioners file Rule 45 petition before the Supreme Court to reverse CA’s 2007 decision.

Tek Sheng, married to Shiok Cheng in 1931, allegedly brought Tiu Chuan from China in 1948 as a maid but made her his mistress.
Eight children, including Emma, were born of Tiu; Tek Sheng purportedly recorded Shiok Cheng as their mother in official records.
NBI report flagged maternal–age and birth-order inconsistencies in hospital records, noting no direct evidence of Tiu’s maternality.
Petitioners seek deletion of Shiok Cheng’s name and substitution with Tiu Chuan in Emma’s birth certificate.

Jurisprudence (Miller v. Miller; Braza; Ordoña) holds that Rule 108 cannot be used to collaterally attack a child’s legitimacy or filiation.
Petition’s commanding intent is to repudiate Emma’s filiation with Shiok Cheng, not merely to correct clerical errors.
Such a collateral attack exceeds Rule 108’s scope and must be dismissed.

Under Section 4 of the Rule on DNA Evidence, judicial DNA testing requires:
a. Existence of relevant biological sample;
b. Scientifically valid technique;
c. Potential to produce new, case-resolving information; and
d. Other factors safeguarding accuracy and integrity.
Courts have imposed an additional threshold: the moving party must present prima facie evidence or show a reasonable possibility of filiation before ordering compulsory testing.
Petitioners’ evidence (NBI report, expert testimony on improbability of Shio

Lee Tek Sheng married Keh Shiok Cheng in China in 1931; they had several children (Rita, Leoncio, Rosa, Melody, Lucia, Julian, Henry, Martin, Victoriano, Natividad, and Thomas) born in China and the Philippines.
In 1948, Tek Sheng allegedly brought Tiu Chuan from China as a “housemaid,” had an affair with her, and sired eight children, including Emma Lee.
Petitioners claim Tek Sheng falsified their birth certificates and those of Emma to list Shiok Cheng as mother, concealing Tiu’s maternity.

1992 Rule 108 petition in Manila (SP. PROC. No. 92-63692) by Rita et al. to correct birth records of Marcelo et al. (respondents there), alleging they were Tiu’s children, not Shiok Cheng’s.
1993 Rule 108 petition in Caloocan (SP. PROC. No. C-1674) by Rita et al. to delete Keh Shiok Cheng as Emma Lee’s mother and substitute Tiu Chuan’s name. Emma’s birth certificate listed “Tek Sheng T. Lee” (father) and “Shiok Cheng T. Keh” (mother).

Respondents moved to dismiss both petitions, arguing Rule 108 is improper for attacking legitimacy/filiation, premature filing, and prescription.
R.T.C. Manila and R.T.C. Caloocan denied the motions to dismiss.
2001: Court of Appeals denied certiorari; Supreme Court denied Rule 45 petition (Lee v. CA, 419 Phil. 392, 2001).
July 2003: Petitioners moved under Rule 28 for DNA testing of Emma and Tiu. R.T.C. Caloocan (2003) and on reconsideration (2005) denied the motion as a “wild and unauthorized fishing expedition.”
April 2005: R.T.C. Caloocan granted a subpoena to compel Tiu’s testimony; it was quashed by R.T.C. and reinstated by CA; Supreme Court in 2010 (639 Phil. 78) quashed the subpoena, ruling Tiu not protected by parental/filial privilege as Emma’s stepmother.
June 2005: Petitioners filed certiorari before CA assailing DNA‐test denial; CA Decision (June 19, 2007) and Resolution (Dec. 11, 2007) affirmed denial.
Present Rule 45 petition seeks to set aside the CA Decision and Resolution.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the R.T.C. Caloocan’s denial of DNA testing to determine a maternal relationship