Myline Cordial

In the matter of the Estate of Edward Randolph Hix, deceased
A.W. Fluemer vs. Annie Cousin Hix
G.R. No. 32636, March 17, 1930
54 Phil 610

FACTS:
An application for probate of the will of Edward Randolph Hix was filed on February 20, 1929. Petitioner who is the special administrator of the estate of Edward Randolph alleged that the will was executed in Elkins, West Virginia, on November 3, 1925, by Hix who resided therein. Petitioner submitted a copy of Section 3868 of Acts 1882, c.84 as found in West Virginia Code, Annotated by Hogg, Charles E., vol. 2, 1914, p1690 and as certified to by the Director of the National Library.

Trial Court’s decision: denied the probate of the document alleged to be the last will and testament of the deceased.

Petitioner filed an appeal from the judgment of the probate court before the Supreme Court. Pending appeal, petitioner presented an unverified petition for the Court to accept as part of the evidence documents, one of which was a paper purporting to be the last will and testament of the testator which was presented for probate on June 8, 1929 to the clerk of Randolph County, State of West Virginia.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not appellant as a special administrator is authorized to appeal the decision of the trial court.
2. Whether or not the pertinent law of West Virginia was duly proven?
3. Whether or not the will was duly executed.

RULING:
1. Right of Special Administrator to Appeal from Disallowance of a Will
The special administrator of an estate is a person interested in the allowance or disallowance of a will by a Court of First Instance, within the meaning of Section 781, as amended, of the Code of Civil Procedure, and so may be permitted to appeal to the Supreme Court from the disallowance of a will.

2. No. The law was not proved as fact. The requirements in proving the foreign law were not met. Findings of the court are as follows:
a. It did not show that the book from which an extract was taken was printed or published under the authority of the State of West Virginia.
b. The extract from the law was not attested by the certificate of the officer having charge of the original, under the seal of the State of West Virginia.
c. It did not show that the extract of the laws of West Virginia was in force at the time the alleged will was executed.

3. No, The due execution of the will was not established. It did not indicate that the will was acknowledged by the testator in the presence of two competent witnesses, or that these witnesses subscribed the will in the presence of the testator and of each other as the law of West Virginia requires. Also, petitioner failed to prove that the testator had his domicile in West Virginia and not in the Philippines.
The due execution of a will alleged to have been executed in another jurisdiction must be established. Where the witnesses to the will reside outside the Philippines, it is the duty of the petitioner to prove execution by some other means.

NOTES:

No judicial notice of foreign laws
The laws of a foreign jurisdiction do not prove themselves in our courts. The courts of the Philippine Islands are not authorized to take judicial notice of the laws of the various States of the American Union. Such laws must be proved as facts. The requirements of Sections 300 and 301 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be met.

Domicile
Where it is desired to establish the execution of a will in another jurisdiction, it is necessary to prove that the testator had his domicile in that jurisdiction and not in the Philippines.

Full Text: Fleumer vs Hix 54 Phil 610 Mar 17, 1930