9/10/22, 10:02 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 054

[No. 32636. March 17, 1930]

In the matter of the Estate of Edward Randolph Hix, deceased. A. W.

FLUEMER, petitioner and appellant, vs. ANNIE COUSINS Hix,
oppositor and appellee.

1. WlLLS; EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS; CODE OF

ClVIL PROCEDURE, SECTION 781, AS AMENDED, APPLIED;
RIGHT OF SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR TO APPEAL FROM
DlSALLOWANCE OF A WlLL.—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. ID. ; ID.; CONFLICT OF LAWS; CODE OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE, SECTIONS 300 AND 301, APPLIED.—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.

3. ID. ; ID.; ID.; CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, SECTION 633,

APPLIED.—The due execution of a will alleged to have been
executed in another jurisdiction must be established. Where the
witnesses to the will reside without the Philippine Islands, it is the
duty of the petitioner to prove execution by some other means.

4. ID,; ID.; ID.; 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
Philippine Islands.

5. ID. ; ID. ; ID. ; CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, SECTIONS 637,

638, AND 639, APPLIED.—Where it is desired to prove the
probate of a will in another jurisdiction and the appointment in that
jurisdiction of an administrator for the estate of the deceased, the
moving party must comply with the provisions of sections 637,
638, and 639 of the Code of Civil Procedure by requesting a

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018327b66e3cdd4b1b39000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/4
9/10/22, 10:02 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 054

hearing on the question of the allowance of a will said to have been

proved and allowed in another jurisdiction.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila.

Tuason, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
C. A. Sobral for appellant.
Harvey & O'Brien and Gibbs & McDonough for appellee.
611

VOL. 54, MARCH 17, 1930 611

Fluemer vs. Hix

MALCOLM, J.:
The special administrator of the estate of Edward Randolph Hix
appeals from a decision of Judge of First Instance Tuason denying
the probate of the document alleged to be the last will and testament
of the deceased. Appellee contends that the appellant as a mere
special administrator is not authorized to carry on this appeal. We
think, however, that the appellant, who appears to have been the
moving party in these proceedings, was a "person interested in the
allowance or disallowance of a will by a Court of First Instance,"
and so should be permitted to appeal to the Supreme Court from the
disallowance of the will (Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 781, as
amended; Villanueva vs. De Leon [1925], 47 Phil., 780).
It is the theory of the petitioner that the alleged will was executed
in Elkins, West Virginia, on November 3, 1925, by Hix who had his
residence in that jurisdiction, and that the laws of West Virginia
govern. To this end, there was 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, p. 1690, and as certified to by the
Director of the National Library. But this was far from a compliance
with the law. 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. (In re
Estate of Johnson [1918], 39 Phil., 156.) Here the requirements of
the law were not met. There was no showing that the book from
which an extract was taken was printed or published under the
authority of the State of West Virginia, as provided in section 300 of
the Code of Civil Procedure. Nor was the extract from the law
attested by the certificate of the officer having charge of the original,
under the seal of the State of West Virginia, as provided in section
301 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No evidence Was introduced to
show that the extract from
612

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018327b66e3cdd4b1b39000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/4
9/10/22, 10:02 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 054

612 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Fluemer vs. Hix

the laws of West Virginia was in force at the time the alleged will
was executed.
In addition, the due execution of the will was not established.
The only evidence on this point is to be found in the testimony of the
petitioner. Aside from this, there was nothing to 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 seems to
require. On the supposition that the witnesses to the will reside
without the Philippine Islands, it would then be the duty of the
petitioner to prove execution by some other means (Code of Civil
Procedure, sec. 633).
It was also necessary for the petitioner to prove that the testator
had his domicile in West Virginia and not in the Philippine Islands.
The only evidence introduced to establish this fact consisted of the
recitals in the alleged will and the testimony of the petitioner. Also
in beginning administration proceedings originally in the Philippine
Islands, the petitioner violated his own theory by attempting to have
the principal administration in the Philippine Islands.
While the appeal was pending submission in this court, the
attorney for the appellant presented an unverified petition asking the
court to accept as part of the evidence the documents attached to the
petition. One of these documents discloses that a paper writing
purporting to be the last will and testament of Edward Randolph
Hix, deceased, was presented for probate on June 8, 1929, to the
clerk of Randolph County, State of West Virginia, in vacation, and
was duly proven by the oaths of Dana Wamsley and Joseph L.
Madden, the subscribing witnesses thereto, and ordered to be
recorded and filed. It was shown by another document that, in
vacation, on June 8,1929, the clerk of court of Randolph County,
West Virginia, appointed Claude W; Maxwell as administrator, cum
testamento annexo, of the estate of Edward Randolph Hix, deceased.
In this connection, it

613

VOL. 54, MARCH 18, 1930 613

Duhart Freres y Cie vs. Macias

is to be noted that the application f or the probate of the will in the

Philippines was filed on February 20, 1929, while the proceedings in
West Virginia appear to have been initiated on June 8, 1929. These
facts are strongly indicative of an intention to make the Philippines
the principal administration and West Virginia the ancillary

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018327b66e3cdd4b1b39000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/4
9/10/22, 10:02 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 054

administration. However this may be, no attempt has been made to

comply with the provisions of sections 637, 638, and 639 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, for no hearing on the question of the
allowance of a will said to have been proved and allowed in West
Virginia has been requested. There is no showing that the deceased
left any property at any place other than the Philippine Islands and
no contention that he left any in West Virginia.
Reference has been made by the parties to a divorce purported to
have been awarded Edward Randolph Hix from Annie Cousins Hix
on October 8, 1925, in the State of West Virginia. The present
proceedings do not call for any specific pronouncements on the
validity or invalidity of this alleged divorce.
For all of the foregoing, the judgment appealed from will be
affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellant.

Villamor, Ostrand, Johns, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ.,

concur.

Judgment affirmed.

_______________

© Copyright 2022 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018327b66e3cdd4b1b39000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/4