IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF EDWARD RANDOLPH HIX FLUEMER

vs. HIX
G. R. No. 32636 (1930)
Per J. Malcolm

FACTS:

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 be the last will and testament of the deceased. Appellee contends that
the appellant as a mere special administrator is not authorized to carry on this
appeal. The Supreme Court considered the appellant the “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, Section 781, as amended).

Petitioner alleged will was executed in Elkins, West Virginia, on November 3,

1925, by Hix, a resident in that jurisdiction, and that the laws of West Virginia
govern. However, the laws of a foreign jurisdiction do not prove themselves in
our courts. The courts of the Philippine Islands are not authorized to take judicial
notice of the laws of the various States of the American Union. Such laws must
be proved as facts. (In re Estate of Johnson, 39 Phil. 156 [1918]).

ISSUE:
Whether or not alleged will should be admitted and permitted for probate.

HELD:

No, the alleged will should not be admitted and permitted for a probate
proceeding. The due execution of the will was not established. The only evidence
is only in the testimony of the petitioner. There was nothing that indicate that the
will was acknowledged by the testator in the presence of two competent
witnesses, or 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 be the duty of the petitioner to prove execution by some other means
(Code of Civil Procedure, Section 633).

With regards to the residence of the testator, the only evidence introduced to
establish this fact consisted of the recitals in the alleged will and the testimony of
the petitioner.

FOR ALL OF THE FOREGOING, the judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED.