EMMA LEE vs. CA, G.R. No. 177861, July 13, 2010, RULE 130. SECTION 25. PARENTAL AND FILIAL PRIVILEGE

 

RULE 130. SECTION 25. PARENTAL AND FILIAL PRIVILEGE

EMMA LEE vs. CA, G.R. No. 177861, July 13, 2010

P: ABAD, J.:

Facts: Spouses Lee Tek Sheng (Lee) and Keh Shiok Cheng (Keh) are immigrants from China. They had 11 children (the Lee-Keh children). Lee brought from China, Tiu Chuan (Tiu) to serve as housemaid. After Keh died, the Lee-Keh children learned that Tiu’s children with Lee (the Lee’s other children) claimed that they, too, were children of Lee and Keh. This prompted the Lee-Keh children to request NBI to investigate the matter. NBI concluded that the mother of the other 8 children (Lee’s other children) is most probably Tiu. Lee is in a dilemma in fixing the age of Keh to conform with his making his 8 children as their own legitimate children, elevating the status of his second family and secure their future. NBI found in the hospital records, the eldest of the Lee’s other children, Marcelo (who was recorded as the 12th child of Lee and Keh), was born of a 17-year-old mother, when Keh was already 38 years old at the time and so forth.

The Lee-Keh children filed for the deletion from the certificate of live birth of the Emma Lee, one of Lee’s other children, the name Keh and replace the same with the name Tiu to indicate her true mother’s name.

RTC granted the request of the Lee-Keh children to compel Tiu, Emma Lee’s presumed mother, to testify in the case. Tiu claimed that it violated Sec. 25, Rule 130, the rule on parental privilege, she being Emma’s stepmother. RTC thereafter quashed the subpoena it issued for being unreasonable and oppressive. CA held that Tiu’s advanced age alone does not render her incapable of testifying.

ISSUE: Whether or not Tiu can testify in court as it would violate her parental right not to be compelled to testify against her stepdaughter.

HELD: Yes. Tiu can Testify in court. Sec, 25. Parental and filial privilege. No person may be compelled to testify against his parents, other direct ascendants, children or other direct descendants.

But here Tiu, who invokes the filial privilege, claims that she is the stepmother of petitioner Emma Lee. The privilege cannot apply to them because the rule applies only to "direct" ascendants and descendants, a family tie connected by a common ancestry. A stepdaughter has no common ancestry by her stepmother. Article 965 thus provides:

Art. 965. The direct line is either descending or ascending. The former unites the head of the family with those who descend from him. The latter binds a person with those from whom he descends.

Consequently, Tiu can be compelled to testify against petitioner Emma Lee.