View full case

IN RE: PETITION FOR CANCELLATION v. CA

FACTS:

The case involves a petition for cancellation and correction of entries in the record of birth filed by Emma K. Lee. Emma is one of the children of Lee Tek Sheng and Keh Shiok Cheng. It was alleged that Lee brought a young woman named Tiu Chuan to the Philippines in 1948, and the other children of Lee believe that Tiu had a relation with Lee and that her children are claiming to be children of Lee and Keh.

An investigation conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) concluded that Tiu is the mother of Lee's other children, not Keh. Based on the NBI's report, the Lee-Keh children filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) seeking the deletion of Keh's name from Emma Lee's birth certificate and the replacement of it with Tiu's name. Additionally, the Lee-Keh children requested a subpoena ad testificandum to compel Tiu to testify in the case.

Tiu, however, moved to quash the subpoena, asserting parental privilege as Emma Lee's stepmother. The RTC granted Tiu's motion and quashed the subpoena, deeming it oppressive. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) ruled that Tiu can be compelled to testify in the case. Dissatisfied with the CA's ruling, Emma Lee filed a petition seeking the Supreme Court's intervention.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the trial court may compel Tiu to testify in the correction of entry case.

  2. Whether or not Tiu's advanced age renders her incapable of testifying.

RULING:

  1. The Court of Appeals (CA) ruled that the trial court may compel Tiu to testify in the correction of entry case.

  2. The CA held that Tiu's advanced age alone 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, something that petitioner Emma Lee failed to do.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A subpoena ad testificandum may be quashed if it is oppressive or unreasonable under Section 4, Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

  • Tiu's advanced age alone does not automatically render her incapable of testifying. The party seeking to quash the subpoena on this ground must prove that she would be unable to withstand the rigors of trial.