In the matter of the Estate of Edward Randolph Hix

A.W. FLUEMER v. ANNIE COUSHING HIX

FACTS
Edward Hix allegedly executed a will in West Virginia. The will was denied probate by the
Court of First Instance, and the special administrator of the estate of Hix, A.W. Fluemer,
appealed the decision. Fluemer theorizes that the laws of West Virginia govern. He
submitted a copy of Act 1882, as found in West Virginia Code, Annotated, by Charles Hogg,
and as certified to by the Director of the National Library.
HELD
This is far from a compliance with the law. The laws of a foreign jurisdiction do not prove
themselves in the courts in the Philippines. Philippine courts are not authorized to take
judicial notice of the laws of the various States of the American Union, therefore, such laws
must be proved as facts.
In the present case, the requirements of the law were not met. There was no showing that
the book from which the excerpt was taken was printed or published under the authority of
the State of West Virginia, as provided in their Code of Civil Procedure. The excerpt was
neither attested by the certificate of the officer having charge of the original, under the seal
of the State of West Virginia. No evidence was introduced to show that the excerpt from the
laws of West Virginia was in force at the time the alleged will was executed.
The due execution of the will was also not established. The only evidence substantiating the
fact was the testimony of Fluemer. There was also an absence of proof showing that the will
was executed in accordance to the formal requirements set by the law of West Virginia. The
due execution of a will alleged to have been executed in another jurisdiction must be
established. Where the witnesses to the will reside outside the Philippines, it is the duty of
the petitioner to prove execution by some other means.
The domicile of the testator was also not proven, as the only evidence to establish the fact
were mere recitals in the alleged will and Fluemers testimony. Where it is desired to
establish the execution of a will in another jurisdiction, it is necessary to prove that the
testator had his domicile in that jurisdiction and not in the Philippine Islands.
One of the documents presented by Fluemer discloses that the last will and testament of
Edward Hix was presented for probate on 8 June 1929 to the clerk of Randolph County,
State of West Virginia and was duly proven by the oaths of the two subscribing witnesses
thereto. Another document states that the clerk of court appointed a certain Claude Maxwell
as administrator for the estate. Meanwhile, the application for probate of the will in the
Philippines was filed on 20 February 1929.
The foregoing facts are strongly indicative of an intention to make the Philippines the
principal administration and West Virginia the ancillary administration. Where it is desired
to prove the probate of a will in another jurisdiction and the appointment in that
jurisdiction of an administrator for the estate of the deceased, the moving party must
request a hearing on the question of the allowance of a will said to have been proved and
allowed in another jurisdiction, particularly in West Virginia, in this case.