G.R. No.

L-32636 March 17, 1930

In the matter Estate of Edward Rando!h "#$, deceased.
%.&. 'L(EMER, petitioner-appellant,
vs.
%NNIE )*(+"ING "I,, oppositor-appellee.
M%L)*LM, J.:
'%)-+: Fleumer, the special administrator of the estate of Edward Randolph Hix appealed from a
decision of Judge of First Instance uason den!ing the pro"ate of the document alleged to "! the
last will and testament of the deceased. #ppellee is not authori$ed to carr! on this appeal. %e thin&,
however, that the appellant, who appears to have "een the moving part! in these proceedings, was
a 'person interested in the allowance or disallowance of a will "! a (ourt of First Instance,' and so
should "e permitted to appeal to the )upreme (ourt from the disallowance of the will *(ode of (ivil
+rocedure, sec. ,-., as amended/ 0illanueva vs. 1e 2eon 3.4567, 85 +hil., ,-9:.
It is theor! of the petitioner that the alleged will was executed in El&ins, %est 0irginia, on
;ovem"er <, .456, "! Hix who had his residence in that =urisdiction, and that the laws of %est
0erginia (ode, #nnotated, "! Hogg, (harles E., and as certified to "! the 1irector of the ;ational
2i"rar!, should govern.
I++(E: %hether or not the laws of %est 0irginia should govern.
R(LING: he laws of a foreign =urisdiction do not prove themselves in our courts. the courts of the
+hilippine Islands are not authori$ed to ta&e #merican >nion. )uch laws must "e proved as facts.*In
re Estate of Johnson 3.4.-7, <4 +hil., .6?.: Here the re@uirements of the law were not met. here
was no was printed or pu"lished under the authorit! of the )tate of %est 0irginia, as provided in
section <99 of the (ode of (ivil +rocedure. ;or was the extract from the law attested "! the
certificate of the officer having charge of the original, under the sale of the )tate of %est 0irginia, as
provided in section <9. of the (ode of (ivil +rocedure. ;o evidence was introduced to show that the
extract from the laws of %est 0irginia was in force at the time the alleged will was executed.
;ote: In addition, the due execution of the will was not esta"lished. he onl! evidence on this
point is to "e found in the testimon! of the petitioner. #side from this, there was nothing to indicate
that the will was ac&nowledged "! the testator in the presence of two competent witnesses, of that
these witnesses su"scri"ed the will in the presence of the testator and of each other as the law of
%est 0irginia seems to re@uire. An the supposition that the witnesses to the will reside without the
+hilippine Islands, it would then the dut! of the petitioner to prove execution "! some other means
*(ode of (ivil +rocedure, sec. ?<<.:
It was also necessar! for the petitioner to prove that the testator had his domicile in %est
0irginia and not esta"lish this fact consisted of the recitals in the )%-". will and the testimon! of
the petitioner. #lso in "eginning administration proceedings originall! in the +hilippine Islands, the
petitioner violated his own theor! "! attempting to have the principal administration in the +hilippine
Islands.
%hile the appeal pending su"mission in this court, the attorne! for the appellant presented
an unverified petition as&ing the court to accept as part of the evidence the documents attached to
the petition. Ane of these documents discloses that a paper writing purporting to "e the was
presented for pro"ate on June -, .454, to the cler& of Randolph (ountr!, )tate of %est 0irginia, in
vacation, and was dul! proven "! the oaths of 1ana %amsle! and Joseph 2. B#dden, the
su"scri"ing witnesses thereto , and ordered to "e recorded and filed. It was shown "! another
document that, in vacation, on June -, .454, the cler& of court of Randolph (ountr!, %est 0irginia,
appointed (laude %. Baxwell as administrator, cum testamento annexo, of the estate of Edward
Randolph Hix, deceased. In this connection, it is to "e noted that the application for the pro"ate of
the will in the +hilippines was filed on Fe"ruar! 59, .454, while the proceedings in %est 0irginia
appear to have "een initiated on June -, .454. hese facts are strongl! indicative of an intention to
ma&e the +hilippines the principal administration and %est 0irginia the ancillar! administration.
However this ma! "e, no attempt has "een made to compl! with (ivil +rocedure, for no hearing on
the @uestion of the allowance of a will said to have "een proved and allowed in %est 0irginia has
"een re@uested. here is no showing that the deceased left an! propert! at an! place other than the
+hilippine Islands and no contention that he left an! in %est 0irginia.
Reference has "een made "! the parties to a divorce purported to have "een awarded
Edward Randolph Hix from #nnie (ousins Hix on Acto"er -, .456, in the )tate of %est specific
pronouncements on the validit! or validit! of this alleged divorce.
For all of the foregoing, the =udgment appealed from will "e affirmed, with the costs of this
instance against the appellant.