Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Lee vs. CA
Lee vs. CA
Note.Conspiracyisaunityofpurposeandintentionin
thecommissionofacrime.(People vs. Muit,568SCRA251
[2008])
o0o
G.R.No.177861.July13,2010.*
67
VOL.625,JULY13,2010
67
68
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Lee vs. Court of Appeal
ABAD,J.:
Thiscaseisaboutthegroundsforquashingasubpoena
ad testificandumandaparentsrightnottotestifyinacase
againsthischildren.
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,
LeoncioK.Lee,LuciaK.LeeOng,JulianK.Lee,MartinK.
Lee,RosaLeeVanderlek,MelodyLeeChin,HenryK.Lee,
Natividad LeeMiguel, Victoriano K. Lee, and Thomas K.
Lee(collectively,theLeeKehchildren).
In1948,LeebroughtfromChinaayoungwomannamed
Tiu Chuan (Tiu), supposedly to serve as housemaid. The
respondentLeeKehchildrenbelievethatTiulefttheLee
Kehhousehold,movedintoanotherpropertyofLeenearby,
andhadarelationwithhim.
Shortly after Keh died in 1989, the LeeKeh children
learnedthatTiuschildrenwithLee(collectively,theLees
otherchildren)claimedthatthey,too,werechildrenofLee
andKeh.ThispromptedtheLeeKehchildrentorequestthe
69
VOL.625,JULY13,2010
69
TheNBIfound,forexample,thatinthehospitalrecords,
theeldestoftheLeesotherchildren,MarceloLee(whowas
recordedasthe12thchildofLeeandKeh),wasbornofa17
yearoldmother,whenKehwasalready38yearsoldatthe
time.AnotheroftheLeesotherchildren,MarianoLee,was
bornofa23yearoldmother,whenKehwasthenalready40
years old, and so forth. In other words, by the hospital
records of the Lees other children, Kehs declared age did
notcoincidewithheractualagewhenshesupposedlygave
birthtosuchotherchildren,numberingeight.
On the basis of this report, the respondent LeeKeh
childrenfiledtwoseparatepetitions,oneofthembeforethe
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City2 in Special
70
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Lee vs. Court of Appeal
InApril2005theLeeKehchildrenfiledwiththeRTC
an ex parte request for the issuance of a subpoena ad
testificandumtocompelTiu,EmmaLeespresumedmother,
totestifyinthecase.TheRTCgrantedthemotionbutTiu
moved to quash the subpoena, claiming that it was
oppressiveandviolatedSection25,Rule130oftheRulesof
Court,theruleonparentalprivilege,shebeingEmmaLees
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
admittingthatshewasEmmaLeesmother.
Because the RTC denied the LeeKeh childrens motion
for reconsideration, they filed a special civil action of
certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) in CAG.R. SP
92555.OnDecember29,2006theCArenderedadecision,4
settingasidetheRTCsAugust5,2005Order.TheCAruled
that only a subpoena duces tecum, not a subpoena ad
testificandum, may be quashed for being oppressive or
unreasonableunderSection4,Rule21oftheRulesofCivil
Procedure.TheCAalsoheldthatTiusadvancedagealone
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,
somethingthatpetitionerEmmaLeefailedtodo.
Since the CA denied Emma Lees motion for
reconsiderationbyresolutionofMay8,2007,5shefiledthe
presentpetitionwiththisCourt.
_______________
3 Sec.25.Parental and filial privilege.No person may be
compelled to testify against his parents, other direct ascendants,
childrenorotherdirectdescendants.
4 Rollo, pp. 923; Opinion of then Presiding Justice Ruben T. Reyes
(now a retired Associate Justice of the Court), with the concurrence of
AssociateJusticesJuanQ.Enriquez,Jr.andVicenteS.E.Veloso.
5Id.,atpp.2526.
71
VOL.625,JULY13,2010
Lee vs. Court of Appeal
71
Notably,theCourtpreviouslydecidedintherelatedcase
ofLee v. Court of Appeals6thattheLeeKehchildrenhave
the right to file the action for correction of entries in the
certificates of birth of Lees other children, Emma Lee
included.The
_______________
6419Phil.392;367SCRA110(2001).
72
72
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Lee vs. Court of Appeal
Courtrecognizedthattheultimateobjectofthesuitwas
to establish the fact that Lees other children were not
childrenofKeh.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
VOL.625,JULY13,2010
73
74
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Lee vs. Court of Appeal
Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, per Special Order No. 863 dated July 5,
2010.