Lex Rex Ph

Chua Keng Giap vs TAC

When the mother herself denies someone as her son, no one else, even the Supreme Court, can question that. It is only her who knows if that person came out from her womb.


Petitioner claims that he is the son of Chua Bing Guan and Sy Kua and filed on May 19, 1983, a petition for the settlement of the estate of the late Sy Kao in the RTC of Quezon City. The private respondent moved to dismiss for lack of a cause of action and the petitioner’s capacity to file the petition because Chua Keng Giap is not the son of the above-mentioned couple as testified by the mother herself.

Paternity and not the maternity of the petitioner is to be decided. Therefore, the testimony of the mother should not be credited.Res judicata: The latter, it was claimed, had been declared as not the son of the spouses Chua Bing Guan and Sy Kao in S.P. No. Q-12592, for the settlement of the estate of the late Chua Bing Guan.
• Mother’s testimonials: Sy Kua herself testified that she is not her son.Petitioner:


Is Chua Keng Giap is the son of Chua Bing and Sy Kua?


No. Who better than Sy Kao/Kua herself would know of Chua Keng Giap was really her son? More than anyone else, it was Sy Kao who could say — as indeed she has said these many years — that Chua Keng Giap was not begotten of her womb. The issue of his claimed filiation has long been settled, and with finality, by no less than this Court. That issue cannot be resurrected now because it has been laid to rest in Sy Kao v. Court of Appeals, decided on September 28, 1984. In that case, Sy Kao flatly and unequivocally declared that she was not the petitioner’s mother.  Petition Denied.

Other Content You May Be Interested In:

Palay Inc. vs. Clave

Facts In 1965, Palay Inc thru its President, executed a Contract to Sell in favor of private respondent Nazario Dumpit, a parcel of land in Antipolo Rizal. Terms include DP and installments.

Read More »

Briones vs. CA

Remedial Law: Plaintiff not expected to comply with the stipulation of venue on the agreement if he sails the validity of the latter. Compliance therewith means implicit recognition of its validity. G.R.

Read More »

Chi Ming Tsoi v CA Digest

“Love is Useless Unless Shared” CHI MING TSOI, petitioner,vs.COURT OF APPEALS and GINA LAO-TSOI, respondents. IN RELATION TO COURSE: Persons under Psychological Incapacity, Nullity of marriage by reason of protracted avoidance of

Read More »

Casupanan vs. Laroya Digest

Lesson: The accused can file a separate civil action for quasi-delict – Rule 111 Sec. 1 Par. 6 Facts Lesson: The accused can file a separate civil action for quasi-delict – Rule

Read More »


Is the failure to assert a right or neglect to exercise due diligence for an unreasonable length of time. Also called “estoppel by laches” is the negligence or omission to assert a

Read More »