FLEUMER v.

HIX

54 Phil 610

FACTS:

The petitioner is a special administrator of the estate of Edward Hix. He alleged that the latter’s will was
executed in Elkins, West Virginia on November 3, 1925 by Hix who had his residence in that jurisdiction,
and that the laws of that state govern. To this end, the petitioner submitted a copy of Section 3868 of Acts
1882, as found in West Virginia Code and as certified to by the Director of National Library. The Judge of
the First Instance however denied the probate of the will on the grounds that Sec 300 and 301 of the Code
of Civil Procedure were not complied with. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE:

Whether or not it is necessary to prove in this jurisdiction the existence of such law in West Virginia as a
prerequisite to the allowance and recording of said will.

RULING:

Yes.

The laws of the 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. Here the requirements of the law were not met. There was no showing
that the book from which an extract was taken was printed or published under the authority of the state
of West Virginia, as provided in Sec 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Nor was the extract from the law
attested by the certificate of the officer having charge of the original, under the seal of the State of West
Virginia as provided in Sec 301. No evidence was introduced showing that the extract from the laws of
West Virginia was in force at the time alleged will was executed. The court therefore did not err in denying
the probate of the will. The existence of such law in West Virginia must be proved.

Ancheta vs. Guersey-Dalaygon, GR No. 139868 June 8, 2006

Facts:

2 American citizens have resided in the Philippines. They have an adopted daughter. The wife died and
left a will where she left her entire estate to her husband. 2 years after the wife's death, the husband
married a Candelaria. 4 years after, Richard died and left a will where he left his entire estate to Candelaria
except for some of his shares in a company which he left to his adopted daughter. Audrey’s will was
admitted to probate in CFI Rizal. Inventory was taken on their conjugal properties. Ancheta, as the
administrator, filed for a partition of the first wife's estate. The will was also admitted in a court in her
native land (Maryland).
Issue: Whether or not the properties in issue should be governed by the law where the property is situated

Ruling:

Yes, properties in issue should be governed by the law where the property is situated. However, since the
first wife is a foreign national, the intrinsic validity of her will is governed by her national law. The national
law of the person who made the will shall regulate whose succession is in consideration whatever the
nature of the property and regardless of the country where the property maybe found (Art 16 CC). The
first wife's properties may be found in the Philipppines, however the successional rights over those
properties are governed by the national law of the testator.

Suntay vs. Cojuangco-Suntay

FACTS: Petitioner, Federico, is opposing respondent’s Isabel, his granddaughter, for her petition for
Petition for Letters of Administration over the estate of Cristina, Federico’s wife, who died without leaving
a will. Isabel’s father Emilio, had predeceased his mother Cristina. The marriage of Isabel’s parents had
previously been decalred by the CFI as “null and void.” Federico anchors his oppostion on the fact, that
his son, Emilio had his marraige judicially declared null and void alleging that based on Art. 992 of the Civil
Code, Isabel has no right to succeed by right of representation as she is an illegitimate child.

ISSUE: (As to the Iron Clad Doctrine) Whether or not Isabel is an legitimate child?

HELD: Yes, Isabel is a legitimate child. Article 144 of the Civil Code provides that children born of such
marriages who are called natural children by legal fiction have the same status, rights and obligations as
acknowledged natural children under Article 89 irrespective of whether or not the parties to the void
marriage are in good faith or in bad faith. On the other hand, a voidable marriage, is considered valid and
produces all its civil effects, until it is set aside by final judgment of a competent court in an action for
annulment. Juridically, the annulment of a marriage dissolves the special contract as if it had never been
entered into but the law makes express provisions to prevent the effects of the marriage from being
totally wiped out.

The status of children born in voidable marriages is governed by the second paragraph of Article 89 which
provides that: Children conceived of voidable marriages before the decree of annulment shall be
considered legitimate; and children conceived thereafter shall have the same status, rights and obligations
as acknowledged natural children, and are also called natural children by legal fiction. In view thereof, the
status of Isabel would be covered by the second paragraph of Article 89 of the Civil Code which provides
that “ children conceived of voidable marriages before the decree of annulment shall be considered
legitimate.”
 VENTURA VS VENTURA

Appellant Maria Ventura is the illegitimate daughter of the deceased Gregorio Ventura while Miguel
Ventura and Juana Cardona are his son and saving spouse who are also the brother and mother of
Maria Ventura. On the other hand, appellees Mercedes and Gregoria Ventura are the deceased's
legitimate children with his former wife, the late Paulina Simpliciano (Record on Appeal, p. 122) but
the paternity of appellees was denied by the deceased in his will (Record on Appeal, p. 4).

On December 14,1953, Gregorio Ventura filed a petition for the probate of his will which did not include
the appellees and the petition was docketed as Special Proceedings No. 812 (Record on Appeal, pp.
1-3). In the said will, the appellant Maria Ventura, although an illegitimate child, was named and
appointed by the testator to be the executrix of his will and the administratrix of his estate (Record on
Appeal, p. 7).

In due course, said will was admitted to probate on January 14,1954 (Record on Appeal, pp. 8-10).
Gregorio Ventura died on September 26,1955. On October 10, 1955, the appellant Maria Ventura filed
a motion for her appointment as executrix and for the issuance of letters testamentary in her favor
(Record on Appeal, pp. 10-11). On October 17, 1955, Maria Ventura was appointed executrix and the
corresponding letters testamentary was issued in her favor (Record on Appeal, pp. 11-12).

On or about July 26, 1956, Maria Ventura submitted an inventory of the estate of Gregorio Ventura
(Record on Appeal, pp. 12-20).

On October 22, 1963, four motions were filed by Mercedes Ventura and Gregoria Ventura, namely:
(1) motion to remove the executrix Maria Ventura which was supplemented on April 27, 1965; (2)
motion to require her to deposit the harvest of palay of the property under administration in a bonded
warehouse; (3) motion to render an accounting of the proceeds and expenses of Administration; and
(4) motion to require her to include in the inventory of the estate certain excluded properties (Record
on Appeal, pp. 50-53; 71). An opposition to said motions was filed by the heirs Juana Cardona and
Miguel Ventura and by the executrix Maria Ventura herself (Record on Appeal, pp. 56-61; 61-70 and
71).
Maria Ventura is hereby removed as executrix and administratrix of the estate and in her place
Mercedes Ventura and Gregoria Ventura are hereby appointed joint a tratrices of the estate upon filing
by each of them of a bond of P 7,000.00. Let letters of administration be issued to Mercedes Ventura
and Gregoria Ventura upon their qualification.

ISSUE: WON the nearest of kin, whose interest in the estate is more preponderant, is preferred in the
choice of administrator.

RULING:
YES. In the case at bar, the surviving spouse of the deceased Gregorio Ventura is Juana Cardona while the
next of kin are: Mercedes and Gregoria Ventura and Maria and Miguel Ventura. The “next of kin” has been
defined as those persons who are entitled under the statute of distribution to the decedent’s property
[citations omitted]. It is generally said that “the nearest of kin, whose interest in the estate is more
preponderant, is preferred in the choice of administrator. ‘Among members of a class the strongest
ground for preference is the amount or preponderance of interest. As between next of kin, the nearest of
kin is to be preferred.’” [citations omitted]As decided by the lower court and sustained by the Supreme
Court, Mercedes and Gregoria Ventura are the legitimate children of Gregorio Ventura and his wife, the
late Paulina Simpliciano. Therefore, as the nearest of kin of Gregorio Ventura, they are entitled to
preference over the illegitimate children of Gregorio Ventura, namely: Maria and Miguel Ventura. Hence,
under the aforestated preference provided in Section 6 of Rule 78,the person or persons to be appointed
administrator are Juana Cardona, as the surviving spouse, or Mercedes and Gregoria Ventura as nearest
of kin, or Juana Cardona and Mercedes and Gregoria Ventura in the discretion of the Court, in order to
represent both interests.