A.W. Fluemer vs. Annie Hix, G.R. No. L-32636, March 17, 1930

G.R. No.
L-32636
March 17, 1930
In the matter Estate of Edward Randolph Hix, deceased.

A.W. FLUEMER, petitioner-appellant,
vs.
ANNIE COUSHING HIX, oppositor-appellee.
C.A. Sobral for appellant.
Harvey & O' Brien and Gibbs & McDonough for appellee.
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 by the last will and testament of the deceased. Appellee 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], 42 Phil., 780).
It is 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 Verginia 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 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 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 sale 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 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, of 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 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 establish this
fact consisted of the recitals in the CATHY will and the testimony of the petitioner. Also in beginning administration
proceedings orginally in the Philippine Islands, the petitioner violated his own theory by attempting to have the principal
administration in the Philippine Islands.
While the appeal 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 was presented for probate on June 8, 1929, to the clerk of Randolph Country, 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 Country, West Virginia, appointed Claude W. Maxwell as administrator, cum
testamento annexo, of the estate of Edward Randolph Hix, deceased. In this connection, it is to be noted that the
application for 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 administration. However this may be, no attempt
has been made to comply with 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 specific pronouncements on the validity or validity 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.

A.W. Fluemer vs. Annie Hix, G.R. No. L-32636, March 17, 1930

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A.W. Fluemer vs. Annie Hix, G.R. No. L-32636, March 17, 1930

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A.W. Fluemer vs. Annie Hix, G.R. No. L-32636, March 17, 1930

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

March 17, 1930

In the matter Estate of Edward Randolph Hix, deceased.

You might also like