conflict of laws

7/18/2019 conflict of laws

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conflict-of-laws-5691ed1baa4a4 1/12

G.R. No. L-12767 November 16, 1918

In the matter of the estate of EMIL H. JHN!N. E""# INGE"RG

JHN!N, applicant-appellant,Hartigan & Welch for applicant and appellant.Hartford Beaumont for Victor Johnson and others as appellees.

Chas. E. Tenney for Alejandra !añe" de Johnson# personally and as

guardian#

and for $imeona !añe"# appellees.

!$REE$, J.:

On February 4, 1916, Emil H. Johnson, a native of !e"en an" a naturali#e"citi#en of the $nite" tates, "ie" in the city of %anila, leavin& a !ill, "ate"eptember 9, 191', by !hich he "ispose" of an estate, the value of !hich, as

estimate" by him, !as ()*1,+. his "ocument is an holo&raphicinstrument, bein& !ritten in the testators o!n han"!ritin&, an" is si&ne" byhimself an" t!o !itnesses only, instea" of three !itnesses re/uire" bysection 61+ of the 0o"e of 0ivil (roce"ure. his !ill, therefore, !as noteecute" in conformity !ith the provisions of la! &enerally applicable to !illseecute" by inhabitants of these 2slan"s, an" hence coul" not have beenprove" un"er section 61+.On February 9, 1916, ho!ever, a petition !as presente" in the 0ourt of First2nstance of the city of %anila for the probate of this !ill, on the &roun" that

Johnson !as at the time of his "eath a citi#en of the tate of 2llinois, $nite"tates of 3merica that the !ill !as "uly eecute" in accor"ance !ith the la!sof that tate an" hence coul" properly be probate" here pursuant to section6*6 of the 0o"e of 0ivil (roce"ure. his section rea"s as follo!s5

Will made here !y alien. — 3 !ill ma"e !ithin the (hilippine 2slan"s by a

citi#en or subect of another state or country, !hich is eecute" in accor"ance!ith the la! of the state or country of !hich he is a citi#en or subect, an"!hich mi&ht be prove" an" allo!e" by the la! of his o!n state or country,may be prove", allo!e", an" recor"e" in the (hilippine 2slan"s, an" shall

have the same effect as if eecute" accor"in& to the la!s of these 2slan"s.he hearin& on sai" application !as set for %arch 6, 1916, an" three !ee7spublication of notice !as or"ere" in the 8%anila aily :ulletin.8 uepublication !as ma"e pursuant to this or"er of the court. On %arch 6, 1916,!itnesses !ere eamine" relative to the eecution of the !ill an" upon%arch 16th thereafter the "ocument !as "eclare" to be le&al an" !asa"mitte" to probate. 3t the same time an or"er !as ma"e nominatin& ;ictor Johnson an" John . (ic7ett as a"ministrators of the estate, !ith the sillannee". hortly thereafter (ic7ett si&nifie" his "esire not to serve, an" ;ictor Johnson !as appointe" sole a"ministrator.



:y the !ill in /uestion the testator &ives to his brother ;ictor one hun"re"shares of the corporate stoc7 in the Johnson-(ic7ett <ope 0ompany to hisfather an" mother in !e"en, the sum of (), to his "au&hter Ebba

2n&ebor&, the sum of (', to his !ife, 3lean"ra 2bañe#, the sum of (='

per month, if she remains sin&le to imeona 2bañ

e#, spinster, (6' per month, if she remains sin&le. he rest of the property is left to the testators

five chil"ren— %erce"es, Encarnacion, ;ictor, Eleonor an" 3lberto.

he bio&raphical facts relative to the "ecease" necessary to anun"erstan"in& of the case are these5 Emil H. Johnson !as born in !e"en,%ay )', 1+==, from !hich country he emi&rate" to the $nite" tates an"live" in 0hica&o, 2llinois, from 1+9* to 1+9+. On %ay 9, 1+9+, at 0hica&o, he!as marrie" to <osalie 3c7eson, an" imme"iately thereafter embar7e" for the (hilippine 2slan"s as a sol"ier in the 3rmy of the $nite" tates. 3s a result

of relations bet!een Johnson an" <osalie 3c7eson a "au&hter, name" Ebba2n&ebor&, !as born a fe! months after their marria&e. his chil" !aschristene" in 0hica&o by a pastor of the !e"ish >utheran 0hurch uponOctober 16, 1+9+. 3fter Johnson !as "ischar&e" as a sol"ier from the service of the $nite"tates he continue" to live in the (hilippine 2slan"s, an" on ?ovember ),19), the !ife, <osalie Johnson, !as &rante" a "ecree of "ivorce from him inthe 0ircuit 0ourt of 0oo7 0ounty, 2llinois, on the &roun" of "esertion. 3 littlelater Johnson appeare" in the $nite" tates on a visit an" on January 1,19*, procure" a certificate of naturali#ation at 0hica&o. From 0hica&o heappears to have &one to !e"en, !here a photo&raph, ehibite" in evi"encein this case, !as ta7en in !hich he appeare" in a &roup !ith his father,mother, an" the little "au&hter, Ebba 2n&ebor&, !ho !as then livin& !ith her &ran"parents in !e"en. @hen this visit !as conclu"e", the "ecease"returne" to %anila, !here he prospere" in business an" continue" to live untilhis "eath.2n this city he appears to have entere" into marital relations !ith 3lean"ra

2bañe#, by !hom he ha" three chil"ren, to !it, %erce"es, bapti#e" %ay *1,

19* Encarnacion, bapti#e" 3pril )9, 196 an" ;ictor, bapti#e" ecember 9,19=. he other t!o chil"ren mentione" in the !ill !ere borne to the

"ecease" by imeona 2bañe#.

On June 1), 1916, or about three months after the !ill ha" been probate",the attorneys for Ebba 2n&ebor& Johnson entere" an appearance in her behalf an" note" an eception to the other a"mittin& the !ill to probate. OnOctober *1, 1916, the same attorneys move" the court to vacate the or"er of %arch 16 an" also various other or"ers in the case. On February ), 191=,this motion !as "enie", an" from this action of the trial court the present

appeal has been perfecte".



3s !ill be "iscerne", the purpose of the procee"in& on behalf of the petitioner is to annul the "ecree of probate an" put the estate into intestatea"ministration, thus preparin& the !ay for the establishment of the claim of the petitioner as the sole le&itimate heir of her father.he &roun"s upon !hich the petitioner see7s to avoi" the probate are four in

number an" may be state", in the same se/uence in !hich they are set forthin the petition, as follo!s5A1B Emil H. Johnson !as a resi"ent of the city of %anila an" not a resi"ent of the tate of 2llinois at the time the !ill in /uestion !as eecute"A)B he !ill is invali" an" ina"e/uate to pass real an" personal property in thetate of 2llinoisA*B he or"er a"mittin& the !ill to probate !as ma"e !ithout notice to thepetitioner an"A4B he or"er in /uestion !as beyon" the uris"iction of the court.

2t cannot of course be maintaine" that a court of first instance lac7s essential uris"iction over the probate of !ills. he fourth proposition above state"must, accor"in&ly, be interprete" in relation !ith the thir" an" must beconsi"ere" as a corollary "e"uce" from the latter. %oreover, both the thir"an" fourth &roun"s state" ta7e prece"ence, by reason of their morefun"amental implications, over the first t!o an" a lo&ical eposition of thecontentions of the petitioner is epresse" in the t!o follo!in& propositions5A2B he or"er a"mittin& the !ill to probate !as beyon" the uris"iction of thecourt an" voi" because ma"e !ithout notice to the petitioner

A22B he u"&ment from !hich the petitioner see7s relief shoul" be set asi"ebecause the testator !as not a resi"ent of the tate of 2llinois an" the !ill !asnot in conformity !ith the la!s of that tate.2n the "iscussion !hich is to follo! !e shall consi"er the problems arisin& inthis cae in the or"er last above in"icate". $pon the /uestion, then, of the uris"iction of the court, it is apparent from an inspection of the recor" of theprocee"in&s in the court belo! that all the steps prescribe" by la! asprere/uisites to the probate of a !ill !ere complie" !ith in every respect an"that the probate !as effecte" in eternal conformity !ith all le&al

re/uirements. his much is un/uestione". 2t is, ho!ever, pointe" out in thear&ument submitte" in behalf of the petitioner, that, at the time the court ma"ethe or"er of publication, it !as apprise" of the fact that the petitioner live" inthe $nite" tates an" that as "au&hter an" heir she !as necessarilyintereste" in the probate of the !ill. 2t is, therefore, insiste" that the courtshoul" have appointe" a "ate for the probate of the !ill sufficiently far in thefuture to permit the petitioner to be present either in person or byrepresentation an" it is sai" that the failure of the court thus to postpone theprobate of the !ill constitutes an infrin&ement of that provision of the(hilippine :ill !hich "eclare" that property shall not be ta7en !ithout "ue

process of la!.



On this point !e are of the opinion that the procee"in&s for the probate of the!ill !ere re&ular an" that the publication !as sufficient to &ive the court uris"iction to entertain the procee"in& an" to allo! the !ill to be probate". 3s !as sai" in the case of n re avis A1*6 0al., '9, '96B, 8the procee"in&as to the probate of a !ill is essentially one in rem, an" in the very nature of

thin&s the state is allo!e" a !i"e latitu"e in "eterminin& the character of theconstructive notice to be &iven to the !orl" in a procee"in& !here it hasabsolute possession of the res. 2t !oul" be an eceptional case !here a court!oul" "eclare a statute voi", as "eprivin& a party of his property !ithout "ueprocess of la!, the procee"in& bein& strictly in rem, an" the res !ithin thestate, upon the &roun" that the constructive notice prescribe" by the statute!as unreasonably short.82n that case the petitioner ha" been "omicile" in the Ha!aiian 2slan"s at thetime of the testators "eath an" it !as impossible, in vie! of the "istance an"

means of communication then eistin&, for the petitioner to appear an"oppose the probate on the "ay set for the hearin& in 0alifornia. 2t !asnevertheless hel" that publication in the manner prescribe" by statuteconstitute" "ue process of la!. A$ee Estate of avis, 1'1 0al., *1+ racy %s.%uir, 1'1 0al., *6*.B2n the avis case A1*6 0al., '9B the court commente" upon the fact that,un"er the la!s of 0alifornia, the petitioner ha" a full year !ithin !hich shemi&ht have institute" a procee"in& to contest the !ill an" this !as state" asone of the reasons for hol"in& that publication in the manner provi"e" by

statute !as sufficient. he same circumstance !as commente" upon inO0alla&han %s. O:rien A199 $. ., +9B, "eci"e" in the upreme 0ourt of the$nite" tates. his case arose un"er the la!s of the tate of @ashin&ton,an" it !as alle&e" that a !ill ha" been there probate" !ithout the notice of application for probate havin& been &iven as re/uire" by la!. 2t !as insiste"that this !as an infrin&ement of the Fourteenth 3men"ment of the0onstitution of the $nite" tates. his contention !as, ho!ever, reecte" an"it !as hel" that the statutory ri&ht to contest the !ill !ithin a year !as acomplete refutation of the ar&ument foun"e" on the i"ea of a violation of the

"ue process provision.he la!s of these 2slan"s, in contrast !ith the la!s in force in perhaps all of the tates of the 3merican $nion, contain no special provision, other thanthat allo!in& an appeal in the probate procee"in&s, un"er !hich relief of anysort can be obtaine" from an or"er of a court of first instance improperlyallo!in& or "isallo!in& a !ill. @e "o, ho!ever, have a provision of a &eneralnature authori#in& a court un"er certain circumstances to set asi"e any u"&ment, or"er, or other procee"in& !hatever. his provision is foun" insection 11* of the 0o"e of 0ivil (roce"ure, !hich rea"s as follo!s5$pon such terms as may be ust the court may relieve a party or his le&al

representative from a u"&ment, or"er or other procee"in& ta7en a&ainst him



throu&h his mista7e, ina"vertence, surprise or ecusable ne&lect ro%ided ,hat application therefor be ma"e !ithin a reasonable time, but in no caseecee"in& si months after such u"&ment, or"er, or procee"in& !as ta7en.he use of the !or" 8u"&ment, or"er or other procee"in&8 in this sectionin"icates an intention on the part of the >e&islature to &ive a !i"e latitu"e to

the reme"y here provi"e", an" in our opinion its operation is not to berestricte" to u"&ments or or"ers entere" in or"inary contentious liti&ation!here a plaintiff implea"s a "efen"ant an" brin&s him into court by personalservice of process. 2n other !or"s the utility of the provision is not limite" toactions proper but eten"s to all sorts of u"icial procee"in&s.2n the secon" section of the 0o"e of 0ivil (roce"ure it is "eclare" that theprovisions of this 0o"e shall be liberally construe" to promote its obect an"to assist the parties in obtainin& spee"y ustice. @e thin7 that the intentionthus ehibite" shoul" be applie" in the interpretation of section 11* an" !e

hol" that the !or" 8party,8 use" in this section, means any person havin& aninterest in the subect matter of the procee"in& !ho is in a position to beconclu"e" by the u"&ment, or"er, to other procee"in& ta7en.he petitioner, therefore, in this case coul" have applie", un"er the sectioncite", at any time !ithin si months for %arch 16, 1916, an" upon sho!in&that she ha" been preclu"e" from appearin& in the probate procee"in&s bycon"itions over !hich she ha" no control an" that the or"er a"mittin& the !illto probate ha" been erroneously entere" upon insufficient proof or upon asuppose" state of facts contrary to the truth, the court !oul" have been

authori#e" to set the probate asi"e an" &rant a rehearin&. 2t is no "oubt truethat si months !as, un"er the circumstances, a very short perio" of time!ithin !hich to epect the petitioner to appear an" be prepare" to contest theprobate !ith the proof !hich she mi&ht have "esire" to collect from remotecountries. ?evertheless, althou&h the time allo!e" for the ma7in& of suchapplication !as inconveniently short, the reme"y eiste" an" the possibilityof its use is prove" in this case by the circumstance that on June 1), 1916,she in fact here appeare" in court by her attorneys an" ecepte" to the or"er a"mittin& the !ill to probate.

2t results that, in conformity !ith the "octrine announce" in the avis case,above cite", the procee"in&s in the court belo! !ere con"ucte" in suchmanner as to constitute "ue process of la!. he la! supplie" a reme"y by!hich the petitioner mi&ht have &otten a hearin& an" have obtaine" relief from the or"er by !hich she is suppose" to have been inure" an" thou&hthe perio" !ithin !hich the application shoul" have been ma"e !as short, thereme"y !as both possible an" practicable.From !hat has been sai" it follo!s that the or"er of %arch 16, 1916,a"mittin& the !ill of Emil H. Johnson to probate cannot be "eclare" null an"voi" merely because the petitioner !as unavoi"ably prevente" from

appearin& at the ori&inal hearin& upon the matter of the probate of the !ill in



/uestion. @hether the result !oul" have been the same if our system of proce"ure ha" containe" no such provision as that epresse" in section 11*is a matter !hich !e nee" not here consi"er.2ntimately connecte" !ith the /uestion of the uris"iction of the court, isanother matter !hich may be properly "iscusse" at this uncture. his relates

to the interpretation to be place" upon section 6*6 of the 0o"e of 0ivil(roce"ure. he position is ta7en by the appellant that this section isapplicable only to !ills of liens an" in this connection attention is "irecte" tothe fact that the epi&raph of this section spea7s only of the !ill ma"e here byan alien an" to the further fact that the !or" 8state8 in the bo"y of the sectionis not capitali#e". From this it is ar&ue" that section 6*6 is not applicable tothe !ill of a citi#en of the $nite" tates resi"in& in these 2slan"s.la'phil.net

@e consi"er these su&&estions of little !ei&ht an" are of the opinion that, bythe most reasonable interpretation of the lan&ua&e use" in the statute, the

!or"s 8another state or country8 inclu"e the $nite" tates an" the tates of the 3merican $nion, an" that the operation of the statute is not limite" to !illsof aliens. 2t is a rule of hermeneutics that punctuation an" capitali#ation areai"s of lo! "e&ree in interpretin& the lan&ua&e of a statute an" can never control a&ainst the intelli&ible meanin& of the !ritten !or"s. Furthermore, theepi&raph, or hea"in&,, of a section, bein& nothin& more than a convenientin"e to the contents of the provision, cannot have the effect of limitin& theoperative !or"s containe" in the bo"y of the tet. 2t results that if Emil H.Johnson !as at the time of his "eath a citi#en of the $nite" tates an" of the

tate of 2llinois, his !ill !as provable un"er this section in the courts of the(hilippine 2slan"s, provi"e" the instrument !as so eecute" as to bea"missible to probate un"er the la!s of the tate of 2llinois.@e are thus brou&ht to consi"er the secon" principal proposition state" at theoutset of this "iscussion, !hich raises the /uestion !hether the or"er f probate can be set asi"e in this procee"in& on the other &roun" state" in thepetition, namely, that the testator !as not a resi"ent of the tate of 2llinois an"that the !ill !as not ma"e in conformity !ith the la!s of that tate.he or"er of the 0ourt of First 2nstance a"mittin& the !ill to probate recites,

amon& other thin&s5hat upon the "ate !hen the !ill in /uestion !as eecute" Emil H. Johnson!as a citi#en of the $nite" tates, naturali#e" in the tate of 2llinois, 0ountyof 0oo7, an" that the !ill in /uestion !as eecute" in conformity !ith the"ispositions of the la! f the tate of 2llinois.@e consi"er this e/uivalent to a fin"in& that upon the "ate of the eecution of the !ill the testator !as a citi#en of the tate of 2llinois an" that the !ill !aseecute" in conformity !ith the la!s of that tate. $pon the last point thefin"in& is epress an" in our opinion the statement that the testator !as aciti#en of the $nite" tates, naturali#e" in the tate of 2llinois, shoul" be



ta7en to imply that he !as a citi#en of the tate of 2llinois, as !ell as of the$nite" tates.he naturali#ation la!s of the $nite" tates re/uire, as a con"ition prece"entto the &rantin& of the certificate of naturali#ation, that the applicant shoul"have resi"e" at least five years in the $nite" tates an" for one year !ithin

the tate or territory !here the court &rantin& the naturali#ation papers ishel" an" in the absence of clear proof to the contrary it shoul" be presume"that a person naturali#e" in a court of a certain tate thereby becomes aciti#en of that tate as !ell as of the $nite" tates.2n this connection it shoul" be remembere" that the Fourteenth 3men"mentto the 0onstitution of the $nite" tates "eclares, in its openin& !or"s, that allpersons naturali#e" in the $nite" tates, an" subect to the uris"ictionthereof, are citi#ens of the $nite" tates an" of the tate !herein they resi"e.2t is note!orthy that the petition by !hich it is sou&ht to annul the probate of

this !ill "oes not assert that the testator !as not a citi#en of 2llinois at the "ate!hen the !ill !as eecute". he most that is sai" on this point is he !as8never a resi"ent of the tate of 2llinois after the year 1+9+, but became an"!as a resi"ent of the city of %anila,8 etc. :ut resi"ence in the (hilippine2slan"s is compatible !ith citi#enship in 2llinois an" it must be consi"ere" thatthe alle&ations of the petition on this point are, consi"ere" in their bearin& asan attempt to refute citi#enship in 2llinois, !holly insufficient. 3s the 0ourt of First 2nstance foun" that the testator !as a citi#en of the tateof 2llinois an" that the !ill !as eecute" in conformity !ith the la!s of that

tate, the !ill !as necessarily an" properly a"mitte" to probate. 3n" ho! is itpossible to eva"e the effect of these fin"in&sC2n ection 6)' of the 0o"e of 0ivil (roce"ure it is "eclare" that 8theallo!ance by the court of a !ill of real or personal property shall beconclusive as to its "ue eecution.8he "ue eecution of a !ill involves con"itions relatin& to a number of matters, such as the a&e an" mental capacity of the testator, the si&nin& of the "ocument by the testator, or by someone in his behalf, an" theac7no!le"&ment of the instrument by him in the presence of the re/uire"

number of !itnesses !ho affi their si&natures to the !ill to attest the act. heproof of all these re/uisites is involve" in the probate an" as to each an" all

of them the probate is conclusive. A0astañe"a %s. 3lemany, * (hil. <ep., 4)6

(imentel %s. (alanca, ' (hil. <ep., 4*6 0hion& Joc-oy %s. ;año, + (hil.

<ep., 119 anche# %s. (ascual, 11 (hil. <ep., *9' %ontañano %s. uesa,

14 (hil. <ep., 6=6.BOur reporte" cases "o not contain the sli&htest intimation that a !ill !hichhas been probate" accor"in& to la!, an" !ithout frau", can be annulle", inany other procee"in& !hatever, on account of any suppose" irre&ularity or

"efect in the eecution of the !ill or on account of any error in the action of the court upon the proof a""uce" before it. his court has never been calle"



upon to "eci"e !hether, in case the probate of a !ill shoul" be procure" byfrau", relief coul" be &rante" in some other procee"in& an" no such /uestionis no! presente". :ut it is rea"ily seen that if frau" !ere alle&e", this !oul"intro"uce an entirely "ifferent factor in the cae. 2n 3ustrua %s. ;entenilla A)1(hil. <ep., 1+, 1+4B, it !as su&&este" but not "eci"e" that relief mi&ht be

&rante" in case the probate of a !ill !ere procure" by frau".he circumstance that the u"&ment of the trial court recites that the !ill !aseecute" in conformity !ith the la! of 2llinois an" also, in effect, that thetestator !as a citi#en of that tate places the u"&ment upon an unassailablebasis so far as any suppose" error apparent upon the fact of the u"&ment isconcerne". 2t is, ho!ever, probable that even if the u"&ment ha" notcontaine" these recitals, there !oul" have been a presumption from thea"mission of the !ill to probate as the !ill of a citi#en of 2llinois that the facts!ere as recite" in the or"er of probate.

3s !as sai" by this court in the case of :anco Español-Filipino %s. (alancaA*= (hil. <ep., 9)1B, 8here is no principle of la! better settle" than that after uris"iction has once been ac/uire", every act of a court of &eneral uris"iction shall be presume" to have been ri&htly "one. his rule is applie"to every u"&ment or "ecree ren"ere" in the various sta&es of theprocee"in&s from their initiation to their completion A;oorhees %s. $nite"tates :an7, 1 (et., *14 *' $. ., 449B an" if the recor" is silent !ithrespect to any fact !hich must have establishe" before the court coul" haveri&htly acte", it !ill be presume" that such fact !as properly brou&ht to its

7no!le"&e.8he 0ourt of First 2nstance is a court of ori&inal an" &eneral uris"iction an"there is no "ifference in its faculties in this respect !hether eercise" inmatters of probate or eerte" in or"inary contentious liti&ation. he trial courttherefore necessarily ha" the po!er to "etermine the facts upon !hich thepropriety of a"mittin& the !ill to probate "epen"e" an" the recital of thosefacts in the u"&ment !as probably not essential to its vali"ity. ?o epressrulin& is, ho!ever, necessary on this point.@hat has been sai" effectually "isposes of the petition consi"ere" in its

aspect as an attac7 upon the or"er of probate for error apparent on the faceof the recor". :ut the petitioner see7s to have the u"&ment revie!e", it bein&

asserte" that the fin"in&s of the trial court— especially on the /uestion of the

citi#enship of the testator— are not supporte" by the evi"ence. 2t nee"s but a

moments reflection, ho!ever, to sho! that in such a procee"in& as this it isnot possible to reverse the ori&inal or"er on the &roun" that the fin"in&s of thetrial court are unsupporte" by the proof a""uce" before that court. he onlyprocee"in& in !hich a revie! of the evi"ence can be secure" is by appeal,an" the case is not before us upon appeal from the ori&inal or"er a"mittin&

the !ill to probate. he present procee"in&s by petition to set asi"e the or"er of probate, an" the appeal herein is from the or"er "enyin& this relief. 2t is



obvious that on appeal from an or"er refusin& to vacate a u"&ment it is notpossible to revie! the evi"ence upon !hich the ori&inal u"&ment !as base".o permit this !oul" operate un"uly to protract the ri&ht of appeal.Ho!ever, for the purpose of arrivin& at a ust conception of the case from thepoint of vie! of the petitioner, !e propose to eamine the evi"ence submitte"

upon the ori&inal hearin&, in connection !ith the alle&ations of the petition, inor"er to see, first, !hether the evi"ence submitte" to the trial court !assufficient to ustify its fin"in&s, an", secon"ly, !hether the petition containsany matter !hich !oul" ustify the court in settin& the u"&ment, asi"e. 2n thisconnection !e shall for a moment i&nore the circumstance that the petition!as file" after the epiration of the si months allo!e" by section 11* of the0o"e of 0ivil (roce"ure.he principal controversy is over the citi#enship of the testator. he evi"encea""uce" upon this point in the trial court consists of the certificate of

naturali#ation &rante" upon January 1, 19*, in the 0ircuit 0ourt of 0oo70ounty, 2llinois, in connection !ith certain bio&raphical facts containe" in theoral evi"ence. he certificate of naturali#ation supplies incontrovertible proof that upon the "ate state" the testator became a citi#en of the $nite" tates,an" inferentially also a citi#en of sai" tate. 2n the testimony submitte" to thetrial court it appears that, !hen Johnson first came to the $nite" tates as aboy, he too7 up his abo"e in the tate of 2llinois an" there remaine" until hecame as a sol"ier in the $nite" tates 3rmy to the (hilippine 2slan"s. 3lthou&h he remaine" in these 2slan"s for sometime after receivin& his

"ischar&e, no evi"ence !as a""uce" sho!in& that at the time he returne" tothe $nite" tates, in the autumn of 19), he ha" then aban"one" 2llinois asthe tate of his permanent "omicile, an" on the contrary the certificate of naturali#ation itself recites that at that time he claime" to be a resi"ent of 2llinois.?o!, if upon January 1, 19*, the testator became a citi#en of the $nite"tates an" of the tate of 2llinois, ho! has he lost the character of citi#en !ithrespect to either of these uris"ictionsC here is no la! in force by virtue of !hich any person of forei&n nativity can become a naturali#e" citi#en of the

(hilippine 2slan"s an" it !as, therefore, impossible for the testator, even if heha" so "esire", to epatriate himself from the $nite" tates an" chan&e hispolitical status from a citi#en of the $nite" tates to a citi#en of these 2slan"s.his bein& true, it is to be presume" that he retaine" his citi#enship in thetate of 2llinois alon& !ith his status as a citi#en of the $nite" tates. 2t !oul"be novel "octrine to 3mericans livin& in the (hilippine 2slan"s to be tol" thatby livin& here they lose their citi#enship in the tate of their naturali#ation or nativity.@e are not unmin"ful of the fact that !hen a citi#en of one tate leaves it an"ta7es up his abo"e in another tate !ith no intention of returnin&, he

imme"iately ac/uires citi#enship in the tate of his ne! "omicile. his is in



accor"ance !ith that provision of the Fourteenth 3men"ment to the0onstitution of the $nite" tates !hich says that every citi#en of the $nite"tates is a citi#en of the tate !here in he resi"es. he effect of this provisionnecessarily is that a person transferrin& his "omicile from one tate toanother loses his citi#enship in the tate of his ori&inal above upon ac/uirin&

citi#enship in the tate of his ne! abo"e. he ac/uisition of the ne! tateciti#enship etin&uishes the ol". hat situation, in our opinion, has no analo&yto that !hich arises !hen a citi#en of an 3merican tate comes to resi"e inthe (hilippine 2slan"s. Here he cannot ac/uire a ne! citi#enship nor by themere chan&e of "omicile "oes he lose that !hich he brou&ht !ith him.he proof a""uce" before the trial court must therefore be ta7en as sho!in&that, at the time the !ill !as eecute", the testator !as, as state" in the or"er of probate, a citi#en of the tate of 2llinois. his, in connection !ith thecircumstance that the petition "oes not even so much as "eny such

citi#enship but only asserts that the testator !as a resi"ent of the (hilippine2slan"s, "emonstrates the impossibility of settin& the probate asi"e for lac7 of the necessary citi#enship on the part of the testator. 3s alrea"y observe", thealle&ation of the petition on this point is !holly insufficient to ustify any relief !hatever.

$pon the other point— as to !hether the !ill !as eecute" in conformity !ith

the statutes of the tate of 2llinois— !e note that it "oes not affirmatively

appear from the transaction of the testimony a""uce" in the trial court thatany !itness !as eamine" !ith reference to the la! of 2llinois on the subect

of the eecution of !ill. he trial u"&e no "oubt !as satisfie" that the !ill !asproperly eecute" by eaminin& section 1+=4 of the <evise" tatutes of 2llinois, as ehibite" in volume * of tarr D 0urtiss 3nnotate" 2llinois tatutes,)n" e"., p. 4)6 an" he may have assume" that he coul" ta7e u"icial noticeof the la!s of 2llinois un"er section )=' of the 0o"e of 0ivil (roce"ure. 2f so,he !as in our opinion mista7en. that section authori#es the courts here tota7e u"icial notice, amon& other thin&s, of the acts of the le&islative"epartment of the $nite" tates. hese !or"s clearly have reference to 3ctsof the 0on&ress of the $nite" tates an" !e !oul" hesitate to hol" that our

courts can, un"er this provision, ta7e u"icial notice of the multifarious la!s of the various 3merican tates. ?or "o !e thin7 that any such authority can be"erive" from the broa"er lan&ua&e, use" in the same action, !here it is sai"that our courts may ta7e u"icial notice of matters of public 7no!le"&e8similar8 to those therein enumerate". he proper rule !e thin7 is to re/uireproof of the statutes of the tates of the 3merican $nion !henever their provisions are "eterminative of the issues in any action liti&ate" in the(hilippine courts.?evertheless, even supposin& that the trial court may have erre" in ta7in&

u"icial notice of the la! of 2llinois on the point in /uestion, such error is notno! available to the petitioner, first, because the petition "oes not state any



fact from !hich it !oul" appear that the la! of 2llinois is "ifferent from !hatthe court foun", an", secon"ly, because the assi&nment of error an"ar&ument for the appellant in this court raises no /uestion base" on suchsuppose" error. hou&h the trial court may have acte" upon pure conectureas to the la! prevailin& in the tate of 2llinois, its u"&ment coul" not be set

asi"e, even upon application ma"e !ithin si months un"er section 11* of the0o"e of 0ivil proce"ure, unless it shoul" be ma"e to appear affirmatively thatthe conecture !as !ron&. he petitioner, it is true, states in &eneral termsthat the !ill in /uestion is invali" an" ina"e/uate to pass real an" personalproperty in the tate of 2llinois, but this is merely a conclusion of la!. heaffi"avits by !hich the petition is accompanie" contain no reference to thesubect, an" !e are cite" to no authority in the appellants brief !hich mi&httent to raise a "oubt as to the correctness of the conclusion of the trial court.2t is very clear, therefore, that this point cannot be ur&e" as of serious

moment.:ut it is insiste" in the brief for the appellant that the !ill in /uestion !as notproperly a"missible to probate because it contains provisions !hich cannotbe &iven effect consistently !ith the la!s of the (hilippine 2slan"s an" it issu&&este" that as the petitioner is a le&itimate heir of the testator she cannotbe "eprive" of the le&itime to !hich she is entitle" un"er the la! &overnin&testamentary successions in these 2slan"s. $pon this point it is sufficient tosay that the probate of the !ill "oes not affect the intrinsic vali"ity of itsprovisions, the "ecree of probate bein& conclusive only as re&ar"s the "ue

eecution of the !ill. A0o"e of 0ivil (roce"ure, secs. 6)', 614 aha&un %s.e orosti#a, = (hil. <ep., *4=, *49 0hion& Joc-oy %s. ;año, + (hil. <ep.,

119, 1)1 >imuco %s. anara, 11 (hil. <ep., *9*, *9'.B2f, therefore, upon the "istribution of this estate, it shoul" appear that anyle&acy &iven by the !ill or other "isposition ma"e therein is contrary to thela! applicable in such case, the !ill must necessarily yiel" upon that pointan" the la! must prevail. ?evertheless, it shoul" not be for&otten that theintrinsic vali"ity of the provisions of this !ill must be "etermine" by the la! of 2llinois an" not, as the appellant apparently assumes, by the &eneral

provisions here applicable in such matters for in the secon" para&raph of article 1 of the 0ivil 0o"e it is "eclare" that 8le&al an" testamentarysuccessions, !ith re&ar" to the or"er of succession, as !ell as to the amountof the successional ri&hts an" to the intrinsic vali"ity of their provisions, shallbe re&ulate" by the la!s of the nation of the person !hose succession is in/uestion, !hatever may be the nature of the property an" the country !here itmay be situate.8From !hat has been sai", it is, !e thin7, manifest that the petition submitte"to the court belo! on October *1, 1916, !as entirely insufficient to !arrant

the settin& asi"e of the other probatin& the !ill in /uestion, !hether sai"petition be consi"ere" as an attac7 on the vali"ity of the "ecree for error



apparent, or !hether it be consi"ere" as an application for a rehearin& base"upon the ne! evi"ence submitte" in the affi"avits !hich accompany thepetition. 3n" in this latter aspect the petition is subect to the further fatal"efect that it !as not presente" !ithin the time allo!e" by la!.2t follo!s that the trial court committe" no error in "enyin& the relief sou&ht.

he or"er appeale" from is accor"in&ly affirme" !ith costs. o or"ere".

Torres# Johnson# (alcolm# A%anceña and )isher# JJ.# concur.

conflict of laws

Documents