13. FLEUMER V.

HIX (CLEMENTE)
G.R. No. L-32636 March 17, 1930
Topic: Settlement of Decedents’ Estates
Doctrine: Where it is desired to prove the probate of a will in another
jurisdiction and the appointment in that jurisdiction of an administrator for the
estate of the deceased, the moving party must comply with the provisions of
the Code of Civil Procedure by requesting a hearing on the question of the
allowance of a will said to have been proved and allowed in another
jurisdiction.
witnesses, of 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.
In a nutshell, no attempt has been made to comply with Civil Procedure, for
no hearing on the question of the allowance of a will said to have been
proved and allowed in West Virginia has been requested. There is no
showing that the deceased left any property at any place other than the
Philippine Islands and no contention that he left any in West Virginia.
Dispositive Portion: WHEREFORE, judgment affirmed.

Facts:
The special administrator of the estate of Edward Randolph Hix sought to
probate a will in another jurisdiction and the appointment of an administrator
also in another jurisdiction in the Philippines. It must be taken into
consideration that the alleged will was executed in Elkins, West Virginia. The
Court of First Instance denied said application upon the failure of the special
administrator to comply with the requirements laid out by our Code of Civil
Procedure. Undaunted by this, the special administrator comes to the
Supreme Court on appeal.
Issue: W/N probate proceedings of the deceased who is a citizen of another
country and domiciled there can prosper on Philippine soil. (NO)

Held:
The laws of a foreign jurisdiction do not prove themselves in Philippine
courts. The courts of the Philippine Islands are not authorized to take
American Union. Such laws must be proved as facts. Here the requirements
of the law were not met:
1. There was no printed or published law under the authority of the
State of West Virginia, as provided by the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Nor was the extract from the law attested by the certificate of the
officer having charge of the original, under the State of West Virginia,
as provided in the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. No evidence was introduced to show that the extract from the laws of
West Virginia was in force at the time the alleged will was executed.
4. In addition, the due execution of the will was not established. The
only evidence on this point is to be found in the testimony of the
petitioner.
5. Aside from this, there was nothing to indicate that the will was
acknowledged by the testator in the presence of two competent