A.W. Fleumer vs.

Annie Coushing Hix, GR 32636, 17 March 1930

FACTS:
Edward Randolph Hix died and left all of his properties in the Philippines.
Fleumer asserts that a will, in accordance with the West Virginia Code, was executed by Edward in West
Virginia, his residence.
The application for the probate of the will in the Philippines was filed on February 20, 1929, while the
proceedings in West Virginia were initiated on June 8, 1929.
Fleumer filed for administration proceedings in the Philippines
Fleumer testified that the will was presented for probate on June 8, 1929 to the State of West Virginia, and was
duly proven by 2 subscribing witnesses
CFI denied the probate of the will
ISSUE:
Whether the will should be allowed probate in the Philippines despite the absence of proof showing compliance
with the laws of West Virginia for the execution of wills
RULING:
NO. The laws of a foreign jurisdiction do not prove themselves in our courts. Such laws must be proved as facts.
Here, the requirements of the law were not met.
o It was not printed or published under the authority of the State of West Virginia
o 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.
o Due execution of the will was not established.
Beginning administration proceedings in the Philippines is strongly indicative of an intention to make the
Philippines the principal administration and West Virginia the ancillary administration.

Annie Hix vs. A.W. Fluemer, G.R. No. L-34259 March 21, 1931
FACTS:
Edward Randolph Hix was born in South Carolina. Years later, he moved to West Virginia to work as surveyor
After 15 years of residence in West Virginia, he received an appointment as coal expert for the Philippine
Government.
He later married Annie in China and then they returned to Manila to establish their domicile.
After several years, Edward and Annie started to live separately and apart from each other by mutual consent
Annie instituted an action in the CFI against Edward for the purpose of compelling him to provide adequate
support for herself and her son
The CFI ruled in favor of Annie. The case was appealed upon. While the proceedings were pending, the office
held by Edward in the Government was abolished, and he went into private practice for the Manila Electric
Company
For the purpose of obtaining a divorce, he left for West Virginia. He left his wife and child in Manila, and his
business in the hands of his employee, A. W. Fluemer
In the Circuit Court of Randolph County, West Virginia, Edward made false allegation such as: his intention to
reside in West Virginia, and that his wife abandoned him.
o As Annie was not a resident of West Virginia, she was summoned upon the complaint for divorce by
publication, and not having entered an appearance in the case, the court rendered judgment declaring
Annies marriage with Edward dissolved.
Having procured the divorce, Edward returned to Manila where he continued to live and engaged in business up
to the time of his death
During the intestate proceedings of Edward, the CFI held that the divorce decree was valid, as such, Annie is not
entitled to the pension
ISSUE:
Whether the Circuit Court of Randolph County in West Virginia acquired jurisdiction to take cognizance of the
complaint for divorce filed by Edward and to render a valid and binding judgment against Annie
RULING:
No, since Edward was not a bona fide resident of West Virginia, the divorce decree he obtained from the Circuit
Court of Randolph County, is null and void, said court having failed to acquire jurisdiction over the subject
matter.
o A decree of divorce issued by a court of any state of the American Union, or of a foreign country, may be
impeached in another case for lack of jurisdiction in said court over the subject matter, or over the person
of the defendant, or for fraud in obtaining it on the part of the person procuring it.
The court of a country in which neither of the spouses is domiciled and to which one or both of them may resort
merely for the purpose of obtaining a divorce has not jurisdiction to determine their matrimonial status, and the
divorce granted by such a court is not entitled to recognition in the Philippines.
o This rule is applicable to married people who are domiciled in the Philippines although they may have
contracted marriage elsewhere.