A.W. Fluemer (special administrator of late Edward Randolph Hixs estate), appellant vs.

Anne
Cousins Hix, appellee
(G.R. No. 32636, 17 March 1930, 54 Phil 610)
FACTS
Appellant A.W. Fluemer, special administrator of late Edward Randolph Hixs estate, appealed
the decision of CFI Judge Tuason which denied probate of the document which was alleged to be
Edwards last will and testament.
Appellee Anne Cousins Hix contends that as a mere special administrator, Fluemer does not have
the authority to appeal the trial courts decision.
Fleumer alleges that the deceased Edward Hix executed on 3 November 1935 the last will and
testament in Elkins, West Va., where he resided, and thus, the laws of West Virginia should
govern.
ISSUES ADDRESSED BY THE COURT
1. Whether the appellant Fluemer has the authority to appeal the adverse decision of Judge
Tuason for probate of Edwards testament?
The Supreme Court held that A.W. Fluemer should be permitted to appeal the adverse
decision of trial court that denied the probate of Edwards will, as he is a party of
interest and appears to have been moving party in the proceedings as the special
administrator of Edward Hixs estate.
2. Whether the laws of the West Virginia shall be applied and be recognized by the
Philippine courts to the testament and estate of Edward Hix?
The Supreme Court held that the Philippine courts cannot take cognizance of the laws of
West Virginia. It held that those laws must be proven as facts. The Court stated that there
was no evidence introduced to prove that the (extracts from the) laws of West Virginia
was in force at the time of the wills execution.
3. Whether there was due execution of the will?
The Supreme Court held that Fluemer failed to establish the due execution of Hixs will
as there was no other evidence presented by the appellant aside from his own testimony.
There was no indication that the will was acknowledged by the testator in the presence of
/archie.manansala
Archibald Jose Manansala
CEU Law, A.Y. 2015-2016

two competent witnesses, or that these witnesses subscribed the will in the presence of
the testator and of each other, as required by the laws of West Virginia. It would then be
the duty of the petitioner to prove execution by some other means.
4. Whether it was needed for Fluemer to prove that the deceased testator Edward Hix
domiciled in West Va. and not in the Philippines?
The Supreme Court held that the appellant A.W. Fluemer needed to prove that the late
Edward Hix domiciled in West. Va. and not in the Phils. Also, the only evidence
presented by Fluemer to establish this fact consisted of the recitals in the alleged will and
his own testimony.
VERDICT BY THE SUPREME COURT
The judgment of CFI Judge Tuason being appealed is AFFIRMED, with costs of suit against the
appellant A.W. Fluemer.

/archie.manansala
Archibald Jose Manansala
CEU Law, A.Y. 2015-2016