JUSTICE ROBERTO ABAD: THE FILIAL PRIVILEGE 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.

              Under Section 25, Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence “No person may be compelled to testify against his parents, other direct ascendants, 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 ascendants or descendants.

              In Emma Lee vs. Court of Appeals, the person (TIU) who invokes the filial privilege, claims that she is the stepmother of petitioner Emma Lee. The Supreme Court 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: “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. (EMMA K. LEE vs. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 177861, July 13, 2010, ABAD, J.).