Lee v CA to Chu Keng GIap

7/25/2019 Lee v CA to Chu Keng GIap

1/24

1

[G.R. No. 118387. October 11, 2001]

MARCELO LEE, ALBINA LEE-YOUNG, MARIANO LEE, ABLO LEE, !ELEN LEE, CA"ALINO #. LEE, EU$EBIO LEE, EMMA LEE, %&'C!UAN,petitioners, vs.COUR" O( AEAL$ %&' !ON. LOREN)O B. *ENERACION %&' !ON. +AIME ". !AMOY, & ter c%%ctre/'& +'e o Br%&c 7, Reo&%4 "r%4 Cort o M%&4% %&' Br%&c 130, Reo&%4 "r%4 Cort o #%4oo5%& Ct6, re/ec&' RI"A #. LEE, LEONCIO LEE "E# $!ENG & ter er/o&%4 c%%cte/ %&' RO$A #. LEE-*ANERLE#, MELOY #. LEE-C!IN, L

#. LEE "E# $!ENG, +ULIAN #. LEE, !ENRY #. LEE, MAR"IN #. LEE, *IC"ORIANO #. LEE, NA"I*IA #. LEE-MIGUEL, %&' "!O#. LEE, rere/e&te' b6 RI"A #. LEE, respondents.

E C I $ I O N

E LEON, +R.,J.9

his Petition for Review on Certiorari, with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction,

he reversal of the !ecision"1#of the $ourt of %ppeals dated Octo&er '(, 1))* in $%+-R- .P O- 01(2"'#- The assailed decision of the $o

%ppeals upheld the Orders issued &y respondents 3udges 4on- 5oren6o 7- 8eneracion "0#and 4on- 3aime T- 4amoy"*#taing cogni6ance of t

eparate petitions ;led &y private respondents &efore their respective salas for the cancellation and/or correction of entries in the reco

irth of petitioners pursuant to Rule 1eh .hio $heng- The other set, the petitioners herein, are alle

hildren of 5ee Te .heng and his concu&ine, Tiu $huan-

Rita >- 5ee, 5eoncio 5ee Te .heng, Rosa >- 5ee+8anderle, ?elody >- 5ee+$hin, 5ucia >- 5ee Te .heng+Ong, 3ulian >- 5ee, 4enry >- 5ee, ?

>- 5ee, 8ictoriano >- 5ee, atividad >- 5ee+?iguel and Thomas >- 5ee 9hereinafter referred to as private respondents: ;led two 9': sep

etitions for the cancellation and/or correction of entries in the records of &irth of ?arcelo 5ee, %l&ina 5ee+@oung, ?ariano 5ee, Pa&lo 5ee,

ee, $atalino >- 5ee, Ause&io 5ee, and Amma 5ee 9hereinafter referred to as petitioners:- On !ecem&er ', 1))', the petition agai

etitioners, with the eBception of Amma 5ee, was ;led &efore the Regional Trial $ourt 9RT$: of ?anila and doceted as .P- PRO$- O

02)'"C#and later assigned to 7ranch * presided over &y respondent 3udge 5oren6o 7- 8eneracion- On De&ruary 0, 1))0, a similar p

gainst Amma 5ee was ;led &efore the RT$ of >alooan and doceted as .P- PRO$- O- $+12* "2#and assigned to the sala of respondent

aime T- 4amoy of 7ranch 10eh .hio $hengF as their mother, and &y su&stituting the same with the name ETiu $huanF, who is allehe petitionersG true &irth mother-

he private respondents alleged in their petitions &efore the trial courts that they are the legitimate children of spouses 5ee Te .heng an

hio $heng who were legally married in $hina sometime in 1)01- ABcept for Rita >- 5ee who was &orn and raised in $hina, p

espondents herein were all &orn and raised in the Philippines-

ometime in Octo&er, 1)*(, 5ee Te .heng, facilitated the arrival in the Philippines from $hina of a young girl named Tiu $huan- .h

ntroduced &y 5ee Te .heng to his family as their new housemaid &ut far from &ecoming their housemaid, Tiu $huan immediately &ecam

e .hengGs mistress- %s a result of their illicit relations, Tiu $huan gave &irth to petitioners-

Hnnown to >eh .hio $heng and private respondents, every time Tiu $huan gave &irth to each of the petitioners, their common father, 5e

heng, falsi;ed the entries in the records of &irth of petitioners &y maing it appear that petitionersG mother was >eh .hio $heng-

ince the &irth of petitioners, it was Tiu $huan who gave maternal care and guidance to the petitioners- They all lived in the same com

>eh .hio $heng and private respondents were residing in- %ll was well, therefore, &efore private respondentsG discovery of the dishonest

raud perpetrated &y their father, 5ee Te .heng-

he tides turned after >eh .hio $hengGs demise on ?ay ), 1)()- 5ee Te .heng insisted that the names of all his children, including th

etitionersG, &e included in the o&ituary notice of >eh .hio $hengGs death that was to &e pu&lished in the newspapers- It was this seem

rrational act that piued private respondentsG curiosity, if not suspicion- "#
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/118387.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/118387.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/118387.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/118387.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/118387.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/118387.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/118387.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/118387.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/118387.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/118387.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/118387.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/118387.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/118387.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/118387.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/118387.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/118387.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/118387.htm#_edn1


2/24

'

%cting on their suspicion, the private respondents reuested the ational 7ureau of Investigation 97I: to conduct an investigation int

matter- %fter investigation and veri;cation of all pertinent records, the 7I prepared a report that pointed out, among others, the false e

n the records of &irth of petitioners, speci;cally the followingJ

- %s per 7irth $erti;cate of ?%R$A5O 5AA 9%nneB D+1:, their father, 5AA TA> .4A made it appear that he is the 1' thchild of ?rs- >A4

$4A, &ut upon investigation, it was found out that her 4ospital Records, the mother who gave &irth to ?%R$A5O 5AA had given &irth fst time, as per diagnosis of the attending physician, !r- R- 5I?, it was ER%8I!% I, P%R% IF which means E;rst pregnancy, ;rst live

eliveryF 9refer toJ ?%.TAR P%TIATG. RA$OR!. .H??%R@ K %nneB I:- %lso, the age of the mother when she gave &irth to ?%R$A5O 5AA

ecord was only 1 years old, when in fact and in truth, >A4 .4IO> $4AGs age was then already 0( years old- The address used &y

ather in the ?aster Patient record was also the same as the 7irth $erti;cate of ?%R$A5O 5AA 9'*'C Ri6al %venue, ?anila:- The na

?%R$A5O 5AA was recorded under 4ospital o- ''12(, page 0-

- %s per 7irth $erti;cate of %57I% 5AA 9%nneB D+':, it was made to appear that %57I% 5AA was the third child which is withou

ationality, &ecause the 0rdchild of >A4 .4IO> $4A is ?A5O!@ 5AA TA> .4A 9%nneB A+':- ote also, that the age of the mother a

4ospital Records jump 9sic: from 1 to '' years old, &ut the only age gap of ?%R$A5O 5AA and %57I% 5AA is only ' years-

- %s per 7irth $erti;cate of ?%RI%O 5AA 9%nneB D+0:, it was made to appear that ?%RI%O 5AA was the C thchild, &ut the truth is, >A4

$4AGs Cthchild is 5H$I% 5AA TA> .4A 9%nneB A+*:- %s per 4ospital Record, the age of >A4 .4IO> $4A was only '0 years old, wh

ctual age of >A4 .4IO> $4A, was then already *< years old-

- %s per 7irth $erti;cate of P%75O 5AA 9%nneB D+*:, it was made to appear that P%75O 5AA was the 12 thchild of >A4 .4IO> $4A wh

mpossi&le to &e true, considering the fact that >A4 .4IO> $4A have stopped conceiving after her 11th

child- %lso as per 4ospital Rhe age of the mother was omitted in the records- If P%75O 5AA is the 12thchild of >A4 .4IO> $4A, it would only mean that she have

iven &irth to her ;rst &orn child at the age of ( to ) years, which is impossi&le to &e true-

ased on the &irth record of ?%RI%O 5AA in 1)C0, the recorded age of >A4 .4IO> $4A was '0 years old- Two years after P%75O 5A

orn in 1)CC, the di=erence is only ' years, so it is impossi&le for P%75O 5AA to &e the 12thchild of >A4 .4IO> $4A, as it will only mea

he have 9sic: given &irth at that impossi&le age-

- %s per 7irth $erti;cate of 4A5A 5AA 9%nneB D+C:, it was made to appear that she is the 2 thchild of >A4 .4IO> $4A, &ut as pe

$erti;cate of 3H5I% 5AA 9%nneB A+C:, he is the true 2thchild of >A4 .4IO> $4A- Per 4ospital Record, >A4 .4IO> $4A is only '( yea

while >A4 .4IO> $4AG. true age at that time was *C years old-

- A??% 5AA has no record in the hospital &ecause, as per complainantGs allegation, she was &orn at their house, and was later admit

$hinese eneral 4ospital-

- %s per 7irth $erti;cate of $%T%5IO 5AA 9%nneB D+:, it was made to appear that he is the 1*thchild of >A4 .4IO> $4A, and that th

f >A4 .4IO> $4A a--a- ?rs- 5AA TA> .4A, jumped from '( years old at the &irth of 4A5A 5AA on '0 %ugust 1)C to 0( years old

irth of $%T%5IO 5AA on '' %pril 1)C)-

- %s per 7irth $erti;cate of AH.A7IO 5AA, the alleged last son of >A4 .4IO> $4A, the age of the mother is *( years old- 4owever,

4ospital Record, the age of ?rs- 5AA TA> .4A, then was only 0) years old- $onsidering the fact, that at the time of ?%R$A5OGs &irth

?ay 1)CA4 .4IO> $4AGs age is 0( years old and at the time of AH.A7IOGs &irth, she is already *( years old, it is already impossi&l

he could have given &irth to ( children in a span of only 1< years at her age- %s per diagnosis, the alleged mother registered on AH.

irth indicate that she had undergone $A%.%RI% .A$TIO, which !r- RIT% >- 5AA said is not true-

n view of the foregoing facts, the 7I concluded thatJ

A4 .4IO> $4A, &ut a much younger woman, most pro&a&ly TIH $4H%- Hpon further evaluation and analysis &y these %gents, 5A

4A, is in a uandary in ;Bing the age of >A4 .4IO> $4A possi&ly to conform with his grand design of maing his ( children as their

egitimate children, conseuently elevating the status of his 'ndfamily and secure their future- The doctor lamented that this complaint w

ot have &een necessary had not the father and his 'ndfamily ept on insisting that the ( children are the legitimate children of >A4 .4IO>

$4A-"(#

t was this report that prompted private respondents to ;le the petitions for cancellation and/or correction of entries in petitionersG reco

irth with the lower courts-
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/118387.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/118387.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/118387.htm#_edn8


3/24

0

he petitioners ;led a motion to dismiss &oth petitions + .P- PRO$- O- )'+202)' and .P- PRO$- O- $+12* + on the grounds thatJ 91: res

Rule 1alooan $ity, $ivil Registrar of >alooan $ity and the private respondents, the $ourt holds that the

etitioners have complied with the jurisdictional reuirements for the $ourt to tae cogni6ance of this case-

B B B B B B B B B-

O OR!ARA!-"1'#

etitionersG attempts at seeing a reconsideration of the a&ove+mentioned orders of 3udge 8eneracion and 3udge 4amoy failed, hence

ecourse to the $ourt of %ppeals viaa Petition for $ertiorari and Prohi&ition with %pplication for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining

nd/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction- Petitioners averred that respondents judges had acted with grave a&use of discretion amounting to l

Bcess of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed orders allowing the petitions for the cancellation and/or correction of entries in petitionersG re

f &irth to prosper in the lower courts-

n their petition &efore the $ourt of %ppeals, the petitioners raised the following argumentsJ 91: Rule 1eh
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/118387.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/118387.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/118387.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/118387.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/118387.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/118387.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/118387.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/118387.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/118387.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/118387.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/118387.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/118387.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/118387.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/118387.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/118387.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/118387.htm#_edn15


4/24

*

$heng, &ut of his mistress, Tiu $huan, in e=ect a E&astardi6ation of petitioners-F "12#Petitioners thus la&el private respondentsG suits &efo

ower courts as a collateral attac against their legitimacy in the guise of a Rule 1eh .hio $heng to have conceived and

irth to the petitioners as shown in their &irth records- $ontrary to petitionersG contention that the petitions &efore the lower courts

ctually actions to impugn legitimacy, the prayer therein is not to declare that petitioners are illegitimate children of >eh .hio $heng,

sta&lish that the former are not the latterGs children- There is nothing to impugn as there is no &lood relation at all &etween >eh .hio $

nd petitioners-"1)#

urther sanctioning private respondentsG resort to Rule 1


5/24

C

ancelled and/or corrected and the opposition is actively prosecuted, the proceedings thereon &ecome adversary

roceedings-F"''#9Hnderscoring supplied-:

o the mind of the $ourt of %ppeals, the proceedings taen in &oth petitions for cancellation and/or correction of entries in the records of &

etitioners in the lower courts are appropriate adversary proceedings-

We agree- %s correctly o&served &y the $ourt of %ppealsJ

n the instant case, a petition for cancellation and/or correction of entries of &irth was ;led &y private respondents and pursuant to the orde

he RT$+?anila, dated De&ruary 1, 1))0, a copy of the order setting the case for hearing was ordered pu&lished once a wee for three 90:

onsecutive wees in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines- In the RT$+>alooan, there was an actual pu&lication of the ord

etting the case for hearing in E?edia HpdateF once a wee for three 90: consecutive wees- In &oth cases notices of the orders were orde

erved upon the .olicitor eneral, the $ivil Registrars of ?anila and >alooan and upon the petitioners herein- 7oth orders set the case fo

earing and directed the $ivil Registrars and the other respondents in the case &elow to ;le their oppositions to the said petitions- % moti

ismiss was conseuently ;led &y herein petitioners ?arcelo, ?ariano, Pa&lo, 4elen, $atalino and Ause&io, all surnamed 5ee, and %l&ina 5e

oung in the RT$+?anila, and an opposition was ;led &y Amma 5ee in the RT$+>alooan-

n view of the foregoing, we hold that the petitions ;led &y the private respondents in the courts &elow &y way of a special proceeding for

ancellation and/or correction of entries in the civil registers with the reuisite parties, notices and pu&lications could very well &e regarded

hat proper suit or appropriate action-"'0#9Hnderscoring supplied-:

he petitioners assert, however, that maing the proceedings adversarial does not give trial courts the license to go &eyond the am&it o


6/24

2

ar from petitionersG theory, this $ourtGs ruling in Labayo-Rowe vs. Republic"0'#does not eBclude recourse to Rule 1


7/24

he &asis for the pronouncement that eBtending the scope of Rule 1


8/24

(

t is &eyond dou&t that the speci;c matters covered &y the preceding provisions include not only status &ut also nationality- Therefore,

Kong Tinpronouncement that %rticle *1' does not contemplate matters that may a=ect civil status, nationality or citi6enship is erroneous

nterpretation has the e=ect of isolating %rticle *1' from the rest of the articles in Title N8I, 7oo I of the ew $ivil $ode, in clear contrave

f the rule of statutory construction that a statute must always &e construed as a whole such that the particular meaning to &e attached t

word or phrase is ascertained from the conteBt and the nature of the su&ject treated- "*2#

hirdly, Repu&lic %ct o- )


9/24

)

imilarly, we ruled in #enite6-#adua vs. Court o! "ppeals"C'#thatJ

PetitionerGs insistence on the applica&ility of %rticles 12*, 122, 1< and 11 of the Damily $ode to the case at &ench cannot &e sustained-

B B B B B B B B B-

% careful reading of the a&ove articles will show that they do not contemplate a situation, lie in the instant case, where a child is alleged

e the child of nature or &iological child of a certain couple- Rather, these articles govern a situation where a hus&and 9or his heirs: denies is own a child of his wife- Thus, under %rticle 122, it is the hus&and who can impugn the legitimacy of said child &y provingJ 91: it was

hysically impossi&le for him to have seBual intercourse, with his wife within the ;rst 1'< days of the 0


10/24

1

Lee v CA to Chu Keng GIap

Documents

Transcript of Lee v CA to Chu Keng GIap