Lee v. Lee
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners, Rita K. Lee et al., filed a Petition for Cancellation and Correction of Entries in the Records of Birth of Emma Lee. They sought to delete Keh Shiok Cheng's name as Emma's mother and substitute it with Tiu Chuan's name, claiming Tiu Chuan to be Emma's true mother. Emma's birth certificate listed Tek Sheng Lee as her father and Keh Shiok Cheng as her mother. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied petitioners' Motion to Conduct a DNA Test. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's denial, finding no grave abuse of discretion. Petitioners then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioners assert that they are not precluded from impugning Emma's "legitimacy" as they are her "half brothers and sisters." They maintain that DNA testing should be allowed, citing prior rulings and sufficient evidence to prove Keh Shiok Cheng is not Emma's mother. Respondent Emma counters that petitioners failed to establish a prima facie case for DNA testing.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan's ruling denying petitioners Rita et al.'s motion to avail of DNA testing to establish a maternal relation between Tiu Chuan and respondent Emma Lee. Whether a petition for cancellation and correction of entries under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court can be used to collaterally attack the filiation of a child.
Ruling
The Petition is DENIED. The assailed June 19, 2007 Decision and December 11, 2007 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP NO. 90078 are AFFIRMED. The Petition subject of SP. PROC. No. C-1674 before the Regional Trial Court, Caloocan City, Branch 131 is ordered DISMISSED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan's ruling denying petitioners Rita et al.'s motion to avail of DNA testing to establish a maternal relation between Tiu Chuan and respondent Emma Lee: The Court found that the petitioners failed to adduce prima facie evidence or establish a reasonable possibility of respondent Emma's filiation with Tiu Chuan. The evidence presented, including the National Bureau of Investigation report and Dr. Novero's testimony, primarily cast doubt on the maternal relation between Keh Shiok Cheng and the other children, but did not positively establish Tiu Chuan as the mother of Emma Lee. Petitioner Rita's testimony alone was deemed insufficient and self-serving without further corroboration. The Court reiterated that DNA testing, while a valid means of determining paternity and filiation, is not a matter of right and requires a preliminary showing of a prima facie case or a reasonable possibility of filiation, as established in Lucas v. Lucas. The evidence presented by the petitioners did not meet this threshold. On the issue of whether a petition for cancellation and correction of entries under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court can be used to collaterally attack the filiation of a child: The Court held that a petition for cancellation and correction of entries under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court cannot be used to collaterally attack the legitimacy and filiation of children. The Court emphasized that the primary intent of the petitioners' Rule 108 petition was to impugn Emma Lee's filiation with Keh Shiok Cheng, which is a direct attack on her status, not a mere correction of clerical errors. This is consistent with established jurisprudence, particularly the rulings in Miller v. Miller, Braza v. The City Civil Registrar of Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental, and Ordoña v. Local Civil Registrar. The Court reiterated that legitimacy and filiation can only be questioned in a direct action seasonably filed by the proper party, not through a collateral attack via a Rule 108 petition. Therefore, the Rule 108 petition filed by the petitioners was ordered dismissed.
Main Doctrine
A petition for cancellation and correction of entries in the records of birth under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court cannot be used to collaterally attack the legitimacy and filiation of children. DNA testing will only be allowed when the party seeking it can present prima facie evidence or establish a reasonable possibility of filiation.