Case Summary (G.R. No. 32636)
Key Dates
Alleged will execution: November 3, 1925 (Elkins, West Virginia)
Probate petition in the Philippines: February 20, 1929
Probate and appointment of ancillary administrator in West Virginia: June 8, 1929
Decision on appeal: March 17, 1930
Applicable Law
– Philippine Islands Code of Civil Procedure (as amended) governing probate, proof of foreign law, and ancillary administration
– West Virginia statutes governing execution of wills and grant of letters testamentary
Appellate Standing of Special Administrator
The Supreme Court held that a special administrator is a “person interested in the allowance or disallowance of a will” under section 781 of the Code of Civil Procedure (as amended) and may appeal the trial court’s refusal to probate. Accordingly, A. W. Fluemer possessed standing to seek review of the disallowance by the Court of First Instance.
Proof of Foreign Law Requirements
Because West Virginia law purportedly governed will validity, the petitioner bore the burden of proving the relevant statute as a fact. Under section 300 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a printed copy of the law must be shown to have been promulgated under state authority; under section 301, an authenticated certificate bearing the state seal and officer’s signature must accompany the extract. Fluemer submitted only a certified excerpt of West Virginia Code, Annotated (Acts 1882, c. 84, § 3868), without demonstrating that it was officially published or in force at the date of execution. The Court found this insufficient to take judicial notice of foreign law.
Execution Formalities and Proof of Domicile
West Virginia law required the testator’s acknowledgment of the will before two competent witnesses, with subsequent subscription by those witnesses in mutual presence. The sole evidence of compliance was the petitioner’s testimony; no affidavits or acknowledgments by witnesses were introduced. Absent proof of in-island witnesses or other means of authentication as provided in section 633 of the Code of Civil Procedure, due execution was not established. Additionally, the petitioner failed to prove that Hix’s domicile remained in West Virginia rather than the Philippine Islands, offering only the instrument’s recitals and his own testimony.
Principal and Ancillary Administration
Fluemer’s filings suggested an intent to treat the Philippines as the principal forum and West Virginia as ancillary. However, he did not comply with the procedures for recognition of a foreign probate (sections 637–639, Code of Civil Procedure), including notice and hearing on a will already allowed abroad. No evidence was presented that the testator left property outsi
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 32636)
Parties and Procedural Background
- A. W. Fluemer served as special administrator of Edward Randolph Hix’s estate and filed a petition to probate an alleged last will and testament.
- Annie Cousins Hix opposed the probate and successfully moved for disallowance in the Court of First Instance, presided over by Judge Tuason.
- The special administrator appealed to the Supreme Court, prompting appellee’s contention that he lacked authority to appeal.
Appellate Capacity of the Special Administrator
- Appellee argued that a “mere special administrator” cannot pursue an appeal.
- The Supreme Court held that Fluemer was a “person interested in the allowance or disallowance of a will” under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 781 (as amended).
- Reliance was placed on Villanueva vs. Be Leon (47 Phil. 780, 1925), confirming his right to appeal the disallowance.
Alleged Foreign Execution of the Will
- Petitioner’s theory: The will was executed on November 3, 1925, in Elkins, West Virginia, where the testator was domiciled.
- To establish this, petitioner submitted an excerpt of Section 3868 of the Acts of 1882, c. 84 (West Virginia Code Annotated, vol. 2, 1914, p. 1690), certified by the Director of the National Library.
Failure to Prove Foreign Law
- Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign statutes; these must be proved as facts (In re Estate of Johnson, 39 Phil. 156, 1918).
- Petitioner did not show the excerpted book was published under West Virginia authority (Code of Civil Procedure, § 300).
- No attestation by a West Virginia officer under State seal was presented (Code of Civil Procedure, § 301).
- There was no proof th