Fluemer vs. Hix

Foreign laws are not judicially noticed by Philippine courts and must be proved as facts through the specific methods of authentication prescribed by procedural law; furthermore, a proponent of a foreign will must provide competent evidence of its due execution according to the foreign law and establish the testator's domicile in that foreign jurisdiction.

Edward Randolph Hix allegedly executed his last will and testament in Elkins, West Virginia, on November 3, 1925. Following his death, A.W. Fluemer, acting as the special administrator of the estate, filed a petition in the Philippine Islands to probate the document, asserting that Hix was a resident of West Virginia and that the will was valid under the laws of that state.

• A.W. Fluemer, the special administrator, attempted to probate a document claimed to be the last will of Edward Randolph Hix, which was purportedly executed in West Virginia.
• To prove the applicable West Virginia law, the petitioner submitted a copy of an extract from the "West Virginia Code, Annotated, by Hogg, Charles E.," which was certified only by the Director of the National Library of the Philippines.
• No evidence was presented to show that the book from which the extract was taken was printed or published under the authority of the State of West Virginia.
• The petitioner did not provide a certificate from the officer having charge of the original law under the seal of the State of West Virginia.
• The petitioner failed to introduce evidence showing that the cited law was in force at the time the alleged will was executed in 1925.
• The only evidence regarding the due execution of the will was the testimony of the petitioner himself, with no testimony from the subscribing witnesses or proof of their signatures.
• There was no evidence that the will was acknowledged by the testator in the presence of two competent witnesses or that the witnesses signed in the presence of the testator and each other.
• The petitioner relied solely on his own testimony and the recitals within the will to establish that the testator was domiciled in West Virginia rather than the Philippines.
• Evidence surfaced during the appeal indicating that probate proceedings in West Virginia were only initiated in June 1929, months after the Philippine proceedings had already begun in February 1929.

• The petitioner argued that the will was valid because it complied with the laws of West Virginia, the jurisdiction where the testator resided and where the will was executed.
• The petitioner contended that the certified extract from the West Virginia Code provided sufficient proof of the foreign law to the court.
• The petitioner asserted that his testimony was adequate to prove both the due execution of the will and the fact that the testator was domiciled in West Virginia.

• The respondent argued that the appellant, in his capacity as a special administrator, had no legal authority to appeal the trial court's decision.
• The respondent contended that the petitioner failed to comply with the legal requirements for proving foreign statutes in Philippine courts.
• The respondent maintained that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the due execution of the will or the actual domicile of the deceased.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether a special administrator has the standing to appeal a decision disallowing a will as a "person interested" under the Code of Civil Procedure.
  • Whether the petitioner sufficiently proved the foreign law of West Virginia in accordance with the rules of evidence.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the due execution of the will was established by competent evidence.
  • Whether the petitioner proved that the testator was domiciled in West Virginia at the time of the will's execution.

• Procedural:
  • The Court ruled that the special administrator was the moving party in the proceedings and thus qualified as a "person interested" under Section 781 of the Code of Civil Procedure, making the appeal permissible.
  • The Court ruled that the foreign law was not proved because the petitioner failed to meet the requirements of Section 300 (proof of authorized publication) and Section 301 (attestation by the legal custodian under state seal) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
• Substantive:
  • The Court ruled that due execution was not established because the petitioner's uncorroborated testimony did not satisfy the requirement to prove that the testator and witnesses signed in each other's presence, nor did it satisfy the requirements for proving a will when witnesses are outside the jurisdiction.
  • The Court ruled that domicile was not proven, noting that the petitioner's own actions in seeking principal administration in the Philippines contradicted the claim that the testator was domiciled in West Virginia.

• Judicial Notice of Foreign Laws — Philippine courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the laws of foreign jurisdictions, including the various states of the United States; such laws must be alleged and proved as facts.
• Proof of Foreign Statutes (Section 300, Code of Civil Procedure) — A foreign statute may be proved by a printed copy of the law published under the authority of the foreign state.
• Proof of Public Records (Section 301, Code of Civil Procedure) — A foreign law or public record may be proved by a copy attested by the officer having legal custody of the original, with the certificate of the secretary of state or other officer having the seal of the government.
• Probate of Foreign Wills — To probate a will executed abroad, the proponent must prove the foreign law, the due execution of the will under that law, and the testator's domicile in that foreign state.

• "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."

• Villanueva vs. De Leon (47 Phil., 780) — Cited to establish that a person interested in the allowance or disallowance of a will is permitted to appeal the trial court's decision.
• In re Estate of Johnson (39 Phil., 156) — Cited as precedent for the rule that foreign laws must be proved as facts and cannot be judicially noticed by the courts.

• Code of Civil Procedure, Section 781 — Used to determine the right of an interested party to appeal the disallowance of a will.
• Code of Civil Procedure, Section 300 — Applied to evaluate whether the printed extract of the West Virginia Code was properly authenticated as an authorized publication.
• Code of Civil Procedure, Section 301 — Applied to determine if the foreign law was properly attested by the legal custodian under the state seal.
• Code of Civil Procedure, Section 633 — Cited regarding the duty of a petitioner to prove the execution of a will when witnesses reside outside the Philippines.
• Code of Civil Procedure, Sections 637, 638, 639 — Referenced regarding the procedural requirements for the allowance of a will proved and allowed in a foreign country.