Title
IN RE: Johnson
Case
G.R. No. 12767
Decision Date
Nov 16, 1918
Emil H. Johnson’s holographic will, executed under Illinois law, was upheld in Philippine probate court despite challenges by his daughter, Ebba, over jurisdiction, notice, and compliance with Illinois law. The Supreme Court affirmed, ruling the will valid under Illinois law, with intrinsic validity governed by Illinois, not Philippine law.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 12767)

Probate under foreign‐law provision

Invocation of Code of Civil Procedure section 636 permitted proof of wills “made here by a citizen or subject of another state or country” if executed according to the law of that state. The petition asserted Johnson’s U.S. citizenship and Illinois execution formalities, justifying probate in Manila with full effect as if compliant with local law.

Probate proceedings and notice

After three weeks’ publication in the Manila Daily Bulletin, witnesses testified on March 6, 1916. On March 16, the Court of First Instance admitted the will to probate and appointed administrators. Publication and hearing complied with statutory in rem jurisdiction requirements without individualized personal notice to distant heirs.

Challenge and grounds of petition

Ebba Ingeborg Johnson’s counsel entered an exception (June 12) and later moved (October 31) to vacate the March 16 order on four grounds: lack of Illinois residency, nonconformity with Illinois execution law, absence of notice to petitioner, and excess of court jurisdiction.

Due process and in rem probate jurisdiction

The Supreme Court held probate proceedings essentially in rem, where constructive notice by statutory publication affords due process. Analogous U.S. precedents (In re Davis; O’Callaghan v. O’Brien) sustain that short‐term publication does not violate due process, especially when a statutory period allows challenge.

Section 636 interpretation for U.S. citizens

The court rejected the argument that section 636 applies only to aliens. “Another state or country” reasonably includes U.S. states. Headings, capitalization, or epigraphs cannot limit the operative text. Hence, a U.S. citizen’s foreign‐executed will was properly admissible.

Conclusiveness of formalities under Section 625

Under section 625, probate “shall be conclusive as to its due execution,” binding on matters of capacity, signing, attestation, and compliance with requisite formalities. Philippine jurisprudence bars collateral annulment of a duly probated will absent fraud allegations.

Citizenship and domicile under U.S. law

Decedent naturalized in Cook County, Illinois, on January 10, 1903, presumptively becoming an Illinois and U.S. citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment. Residency in Manila did not terminate Illinois citizenship, as no mechanism existed to acquire Philippine citizenship. The petition’s denial of Illinois citizenship was legally and factually insufficient.

Limitations on collateral attack under Section 113

Section 113 authorizes relief from judgments “through mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect” within six months. Petitioner timely noted exception but filed vacatur motion after the statutory period. Even within six months, absent

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms