(EMMA K. LEE vs. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 177861, July13, 2010, ABAD, J.).

The Facts and the Case Spouses (Lee) and Keh entered the Philippines in the 1930sas immigrants from China. They had 11 children. In 1948, Leebrought from China a young woman (Tiu), as housemaid. Respondent Lee-Kehs children believed that Tiu left the household and had a relation with him. Shortly after Keh died in 1989, the Lee-Keh children learned that Tius children with Lee (collectively, the Lees other children) claimed that they, too, were children of Lee and Keh. This prompted the Lee-Keh children to request the (NBI) to investigate the matter. After conducting such an investigation, the NBI concluded in its report it is not KEH SHIOK CHENG, but a much younger woman, most probably TIU CHUAN. The NBI found, for example, that in the hospital records Kehs declared age did not coincide with her actual age when she supposedly gave birth to such other children, numbering eight. On the basis of this report, the respondent Lee-Keh children filed two separate petitions, one of them before the (RTC) for the deletion from the certificate of live birth of the petitioner Emma Lee, one of Lees other children, the name Keh and replace the same with the name Tiu to indicate her true mothers name. In April 2005 the Lee-Keh children filed with the RTC an ex parte request for the issuance of a subpoena ad testificandum to compel Tiu, Emma Lees presumed mother, to testify in the case. However, later on, the subpoena was quashed by the RTC as it was oppressive and violated Section 25, Rule130 of the Rules of Court, the rule on parental privilege, she being Emma Lees stepmother. CA rendered a decision setting aside the RTCs Order on the ground that only a subpoena duces tecum, not a subpoena adtestificandum, may be quashed for being oppressive or unreasonable under Section 4, Rule 21 of the Rules of CivilProcedure. The CA also held that Tius advanced age alonedoes not render her incapable of testifying. The party seekingto quash the subpoena for that reason must prove that shewould be unable to withstand the rigors of trial, something thatpetitioner Emma Lee failed to do. ISSUE: Whether or not court may compel Tiu to testify in the correction of entry case that respondent Lee-Kehchildren filed for the correction of the certificate of birth of petitioner Emma Lee to show that she is not Kehs daughter.

HELD: Under Section 25, Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence No personmay be compelled to testify against his parents, other directascendants, children or other direct descendants.The afore-quoted rule is an adaptation from a similar provision in Article 315 of the Civil Code that applies only in criminal cases. But those who revised the Rules of Civil Procedure chose to extend the prohibition to all kinds of actions, whether civil, criminal, or administrative, filed against parents and other direct ascendantsor descendants. In Emma Lee vs. Court of Appeals, the person (TIU) who invokes the filial privilege, claims that she is the stepmother of petitioner EmmaLee.

The SC declared that 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 . Relative thereto, Article 965 of the New Civil Code provides: Thedirect line is either descending or ascending. The former unites the head of the family with those who descend from him. The latter bindsa person with those from whom he descends. Consequently, Tiu can be compelled to testify against petitioner Emma Lee.