In re Estate of Johnson

summary: Past case. This is the case where one of the daughters in the first
marriage wanted to invalidate the will so that intestate proceedings may instead
be conducted (i.e. she will be an heir). Will was earlier probated, allegedly in
accordance with Illinois law (TC judge took JN of the law just based on an
annotation), and is sought to be nullified on the grounds that it was not made in
accordance with Illinois law and that the decedent is an RP resident. Court held
that since no Illinois law showed (to prove that it was indeed not made in
accordance with Illinois law) and since what matters is that the decedent is a
CITIZEN of Illinois and since she did not contest the taking of JN of the TC of a
foreign law w/o the proof required, then deemed admitted that the will was in
accordance with Illinois law.
Facts:
Emil Johnson (decedent)
-native of Sweden
-Citizen of US (Illinois)
-resident of RP at time of death
-made a WILL
>in RP
>holographic
>signed and written by him
>only 2 witnesses signed (so did not conform with Section 618 of the Code of
Civil Procedure of the Philippines, which required 3 witnesses)
-probate of his will initiated, arguing the will was executed in accordance with the
laws of Illinois (he was a citizen of Illinois)
TC: declared the will to be legal and admitted it to probate (TC judge relied on
Section 1874 of the Revised Statutes of Illinois, as exhibited in vol.3 of Starr &
Curtis' Annotated Illinois Statutes, 2nd ed, p.426)
--after will probated, her daugher from first marriage, Ebba Ingeborg, moved for
the annulment of the decree, saying:
will was not executed in accordance with Illinois law
the decedent was not a resident of the state of Illinois
WON Section 636 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to wills of aliens
residing in RP?

Section 636: authorizes probate by our courts of a will made within the Philippine
Islands by a citizen or subject of another state or country, when such will is
executed in accordance with the law of the state or country of which the testator
is a citizen of subject, and which might be proved under the law of such state or
country.
-IT IS APPLICABLE: the "state" would include US, and the operation of law is not
limited to wills of aliens.
-if Johnson was at the time of his death a citizen of US and of the state of Illinois,
his will was provable under this section in the courts of the Philippines, provided
the instrument was so executed as to be admissible to probate under laws of the
State of Illinois
Decedent a national of Illinois (to warrant the application of Illinois law)
YES. Proof adduced before TC showed he was indeed a national of Illinois. Petition
merely contests the residence of the decedent to be in the Philippines, but not
the nationality
Why contested residence: US naturalization laws require residence of at least 5
years in US and 1 year w/n the State or territory where the court granting the
naturalization papers is held to grant the certificate of naturalization
-still, no other proof to rebut the presumption that he was indeed naturalized as a
US citizen (particularly of Illinois)
WON will executed in conformity with the State of Illinois
NOT REALLY SURE, BUT THE PETITIONER CANNOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
-Courts cannot take JN of Foreign laws: TC merely relied on the presentation of
Section 1874 of the Revised Statutes of Illinois as exhibited in a volume of an
annotation and assumed that he could take JN of the laws of Illinois. But it was
WRONG!!!
-proper rule is to require proof of the statutes of the States of the American Union
whenever their provisions are determinative of the issues in any action litigated
in the Philippine courts.
-still,
(1) petition does not state any fact from which it would appear that the law of
Illinois is different from what the court found
(2)petition did not raise any assignment of error to question the supposed taking
of JN of the court