Fluemer vs. Hix

Foreign laws do not prove themselves in Philippine courts and must be proved as facts; absent proper proof of the foreign law, the due execution of the will, and the testator's domicile, a foreign will cannot be admitted to probate.

The case involves the settlement of the estate of Edward Randolph Hix, who allegedly executed a will in West Virginia. The special administrator of the estate sought to probate the will in the Philippine Islands, requiring the application and proof of West Virginia law.

• Original Filing: Court of First Instance (Judge Tuason presiding)
• Lower Court Decision: Denied the probate of the document alleged to be the last will and testament of the deceased.
• Appeal: Directly to the SC.
• SC Action: Appeal via right of a "person interested" under the Code of Civil Procedure.

• The Probate Petition: On February 20, 1929, A. W. Fluelmer, as special administrator, filed an application for the probate of Edward Randolph Hix's will in the Philippines.
• The Alleged Foreign Will: The petition was based on the theory that Hix executed the will in Elkins, West Virginia, on November 3, 1925, and that he was domiciled there.
• Attempt to Prove Foreign Law: To prove West Virginia law, the petitioner submitted a copy of section 3868 of Acts 1882, c. 84, as certified by the Director of the National Library.
• Evidence of Execution and Domicile: The only evidence of the will's due execution and the testator's domicile was the petitioner's testimony and the recitals within the alleged will itself. There was no proof the testator acknowledged the will before two witnesses, or that the witnesses subscribed in each other's presence. Furthermore, initiating principal administration in the Philippines contradicted the petitioner's own theory that Hix was domiciled in West Virginia.
• Subsequent West Virginia Proceedings: While the appeal was pending, the petitioner submitted an unverified petition with documents showing the will was probated in Randolph County, West Virginia, on June 8, 1929 (months after the PH filing), and an administrator cum testamento annexo was appointed there. No property was shown to exist outside the Philippines.

• The special administrator is authorized to appeal the disallowance of the will as a "person interested" under Section 781 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
• The alleged will was executed in West Virginia by a resident of that state, so West Virginia law should govern the probate.
• The extract of West Virginia law submitted to the CFI should be accepted as proof of foreign law.

• The special administrator, as a mere moving party, lacks the legal standing/authorization to appeal the disallowance of the will.

• Procedural Issues: Whether a special administrator who was the moving party in the probate proceedings is authorized to appeal the disallowance of the will.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the West Virginia law was properly proven in the Philippine courts.
  • Whether the due execution of the alleged will was established.
  • Whether the testator's domicile in West Virginia was sufficiently proven.

• Procedural: The SC ruled the appellant is authorized to appeal. As the moving party in the proceedings, he qualifies as a "person interested in the allowance or disallowance of a will" under Section 781 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
• Substantive:
  • The West Virginia law was not properly proven. Philippine courts cannot take judicial notice of the laws of the various States of the American Union; foreign laws must be proved as facts. The petitioner failed to comply with Sections 300 and 301 of the Code of Civil Procedure because there was no showing the book was printed under the authority of West Virginia, nor was the extract attested by an officer under the state seal. There was also no evidence the extract was in force at the time the will was executed.
  • The due execution of the will was not established. The petitioner's testimony alone was insufficient to prove that the testator acknowledged the will in the presence of two competent witnesses, or that the witnesses subscribed in the presence of the testator and each other, as West Virginia law seemingly requires. Since the witnesses resided outside the Philippines, the petitioner had the duty to prove execution by other means under Section 633 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
  • The testator's domicile in West Virginia was not proven. The recitals in the will and the petitioner's testimony were insufficient. The petitioner's act of initiating principal administration in the Philippines directly contradicted his own theory of a West Virginia domicile. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to comply with Sections 637, 638, and 639 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which govern the probate of a will already proved and allowed in a foreign jurisdiction.

• Proof of Foreign Law — The laws of a foreign jurisdiction do not prove themselves in Philippine courts. Courts in the Philippines 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. Applied to reject an uncertified extract of West Virginia law that failed to meet the procedural requirements for proving foreign statutes.

• Section 781, Code of Civil Procedure — Grants the right to appeal from the allowance or disallowance of a will to "persons interested." Applied to uphold the special administrator's right to appeal.
• Section 300, Code of Civil Procedure — Prescribes the method for proving foreign laws via printed books published under the authority of the foreign state. Applied to reject the evidence because the book's publication authority was not shown.
• Section 301, Code of Civil Procedure — Prescribes the method for proving foreign laws via attestation by the officer having charge of the original, under the seal of the foreign state. Applied to reject the evidence for lack of proper attestation and seal.
• Section 633, Code of Civil Procedure — Provides the procedure for proving the execution of a will when witnesses reside outside the Philippines. Applied to emphasize the petitioner's duty to prove execution by alternative means.
• Sections 637, 638, 639, Code of Civil Procedure — Govern the allowance of a will proved and allowed in a foreign country. Applied to highlight the petitioner's failure to request a hearing under these sections after the will was probated in West Virginia during the pendency of the appeal.