I. A.W. FLUEMER vs. HIX.

Statement of Facts: The special administrator, A. W. Fleumer, of the estate of Edward Randolph Hix filed
petition for the probate of the purported last will and testament of Edward Randolf Hix, deceased.Judge
Tuason of the Court of First Instance denied the petitionA. W. Fleumer appeals the said decision. It is
alleged that since the will was executed in West Virginia by a resident therein, West Virginia law should
govern.

Statement of Issue: Whether or not the will may be probated in the Philippines.

Ruling of the Court: The courts of the Philippines 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
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 the Code of Civil Procedure;
nor was the extract from the law attested by the certificate of the officer having charge of the original. 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. Aside from this, there was nothing to indicate that the will was
acknowledged by the testator in the presence of two competent 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. It is to be noted that the application for the probate of the will in the Philippines was filed on February
20, 1929, while the proceedings in West Virginia appear to have been initiated on June 8, 1929. These facts are
strongly indicative of an intention to make the Philippines the principal administration and West
Virginia the ancillary administration. However this may be, 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.

II. SUNTAY vs. SUNTAY

Statement of Facts: On Jose B. Suntay, a Filipino citizen and resident of the Philippines, died in the city
of Amoy, Fookien province, China, leaving real and personal properties in the Philippines and a house in
Amoy and 9 children by the first marriage had with the late Manuela T. Cruz and a child named
Silvino by the second marriage had with Maria Natividad Lim Billian who survived him. Intestate
proceedings were instituted in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan and after hearing letters of
administration were issued to Apolonio Suntay. After the latter's death Federico C. Suntay was appointed
administrator of the estate. On 15 October 1934 the surviving widow filed a petition in the Court of First
Instance of Bulacan for the probate of a last will and testament claimed to have been executed and signed
in the Philippines on November 1929 by the late Jose B. Suntay. This petition was denied because of the
loss of said will after the filing of the petition and before the hearing thereof and of the insufficiency of
the evidence to establish the loss of the said will. After liberation, claiming that he had found among the
files, records and documents of his late father a will and testament in Chinese characters executed and
signed by the deceased on 4 January 1931 and that the same was filed, recorded and probated in the
Amoy district court, Province of Fookien, China, Silvino Suntay filed a petition in the intestate
proceedings praying for the probate of the will executed in Amoy, Fookien, China.

Statement of Issue: Whether or not the will executed in Amoy, China may be probated in the Philippines.
Ruling of the Court: The will executed in Amoy, China cannot be allowed. Silvino was unable to adduce
the necessary proof under the Rules of Court in order to probate the will in the Philippines, specifically:

a. The due execution of the will in accordance with the foreign laws;
b. The testator had his domicile in the foreign country and not in the Philippines;
c. The will has been admitted to probate in such country;
d. The fact that the municipal court of Amoy is a probate court;
e. the procedural law of China regarding probate of wills.

IV. LEON AND GHEZZI vs. MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO

Statement of Facts: The case involves the estate of Basil Gordon Butler,formerly a resident of the
Philippines, died in Brooklyn, New York City, in 1945, leaving a will which was duly probated in New
York County and of which James Ross, Sr., James Madison Ross, Jr. and Ewald E. Selph were named
executors. The estate having been settled, the proceedings were closed on July 17, 1947. The will
contained this residuary clause bequeathing the remaining estate to Mercedes de Leon who is to receive
an amount sufficient for her current needs. James Madison Ross was appointed as trustee. Ross bought
an annuity from the Manufacturer's life Insurance Co. at its head office in Toronto, Canada, paying in
advance $17,091.03 as the combined premiums. The contract stipulates for a monthly payment of $57.60
to Mercedes Benz during her lifetime. De Leon has been receiving the stipulated monthly allowance
through the Insurance Company's Manila Office. To get hold of the entire amount, de Leon presented the
will for probate in CFI, Manila with Ghezzi as administrator. After having qualified, the administratrix
filed the motion to demand accounting from Manulife which Judge Amparo has denied.

Statement of Issue:Whether or not De Leon can demand accounting from Manulife.

Ruling of the Court: Section 4 of Rule 78 of the Rules of Court provides:

Estate, how administered.-When a will is thus allowed, the court shall grant letters testamentary, or letters
of administration with the will annexed, and such letters testamentary or of administration, shall extend
to all the estate of the testator in the Philippines. Such estate, after the payment of just debts and expenses
of administration, shall be disposed of according to such will, so far as such will may operate upon it; and
the residue, if any, shall be disposed of as is provided by law in cases of estates in the Philippines
belonging to persons who are inhabitants of another state or country.

It is manifest from the facts before set out that the funds in question are outside the jurisdiction of
the probate court of Manila. Having been invested in an annuity in Canada under a contract executed in
the country, Canada is the suits of the money. The party whose appearance the appellant seeks is only a
branch or agency of the company which holds the funds in its possession, the agency's intervention being
limited to delivering to the annuitant the checks made out and issued from the home office. There is no
showing or allegation that the funds have been transferred or removed to the Manila Branch.
 I. GUERRERO vs. TERAN

Statement of Facts: CFI of Albay appointed Maria Muñoz as guardian for minors Maria Manuela and
Maria del Carmen Muñoz; Maria Muñoz gave the required bond Maria Muñoz was not a resident of the
Philippine Islands at the time of her appointment. She was removed as guardian – but still responsible for
mismanagement; from the time of her acceptance of appointment up to the time of her removal Doña
Maria Muñoz y Gomez was, as above indicated, removed upon the theory that her appointment was void
because she did not reside in the Philippine Islands.

Ruling of the Court: There is nothing in the law which requires the courts to appoint residents only as
administrators or guardians. (Civil Code took effect August 30, 1950). Notwithstanding that there is no
statutory requirement, the courts should not consent to the appointment of persons as administrators and
guardians who are not personally subject to the jurisdiction of our courts here.

II. NAVAS SIOCA vs. GARCIA

Statement of Facts: “A probate court cannot arbitrarily disregard the preferential rights of the surviving
spouse to the administration of the estate of a deceased person; but if the person enjoying such
preferential rights is unsuitable the court may appoint another person.” CFI Samar appointed Jose Garcia,
administrator of the estate of the deceased Geronima Uy Coque. Navas Sioca is the surviving spouse of
the deceased and maintains that the court erred in not appointing him administrator instead of Jose
Garcia. Lower Court based its ruling on the fact that it appeared from the records that the appellant had
adverse interest in the estate of such a character as to render him unsuitable as administrator.
Unsuitableness may consist in adverse interest of some kind or hostility to those immediately interested
in the estate.

Ruling of the Court: A probate court cannot arbitrarily and without sufficient reason disregard the
preferential rights of the surviving spouse to the administration of the estate of the deceased spouse. But,
if the person enjoying such preferential rights is unsuitable, the court may appoint another person.

Salvador Guerrero, guardian of minors Maria Manuela and Maria del Carmen
Sanchez Munoz (plaintiff) v. Leopoldo Teran (defendant) (March 1909)

Doctrine:

Estates; Responsibility of administrators and guardians. The administrator of an estate

belonging to minors is liable for the management of their interests therein from the time
of his acceptance of the appointment until his removal or release. If such administrator
has, in the meantime, permitted other persons to intervene in the management, the
responsibility for their acts fall upon him. The administrator however, may have a right
of action against such person for any loss occasioned by their negligence or corruption.

Appointment of resident administrators and guardians. There is no law in force which

requires courts to appoint residents only as administrators or guardians. No person,
however, should be appointed as guardian or administrator who is not subject to the
jurisdiction of the court making the appointment.

Facts:

On March 1908, Salvador Guerrero commenced an action against Leopoldo Teran to

recover the sum of P4,129.56. This amount was claimed by Guerrero to Teran upon the
theory that the latter had been the administrator of the estate of Antonio Sanchez Munoz
from September 1901 to October 1906. Guerrero made a part of his complaint a number
of items of Teran’s debt, amounting to a total of P12,388.72. In his Answer, Teran
admitted certain allegations and denied others.
After hearing the evidences adduced during the trial of the said case, the lower
court found that Teran, as administrator of the estate of Antonio Sanchez Munoz, owed to
Guerrero the sum of P3,447.46 with interest at 6% until the same should be fully paid.
Teran appealed the decision and alleged that the trial court erred in ruling that he
managed and administered the estate of Antonio Sanchez Munoz as judicial administrator
and executor. Moreover, he denied being responsible to Guerrero for the loans made to
different persons for different accounts and for credits against the persons mentioned in
the complaint.
Upon examination of records, it was discovered that Teran was in fact appointed
administrator of the subject estate. However, on March 1902, the Court of First Instance
of Albay appointed Maria Munoz Gomez (Munoz-Gomez) as guardian of Maria Manuela
and Maria Sanchez Munoz and that Munoz-Gomez gave the required bond for the
faithful performance of her duties as guardian.
Further, while there are indications in the record that Teran continued to act as
administrator of the estate after appointment of Munoz-Gomez, the fact exists that the
latter was the actual representative of Maria Manuela and Maria Sanchez Munoz in the
administration of their interests in the estate of the said Antonio Sanchez Munoz.
Therefore, Munoz-Gomez, as guardian and administratix of the estate of the said minors,
must be held responsible of the property belonging to the said minors during the period
she was their actual guardian.
However, on October 6, 1906, the CFI of Albay removed her as guardian for the
reason that Munoz-Gomez was not a resident of the Philippine Islands at the time of her
appointment. The court then removed her as guardian and appointed Feliz Samson as
provisional guardian with the required bond of P2,000.00.

Issue[s]:

(1) Whether or not Teran, the former appointed guardian and administrator of the minors’
estate, is liable for all the debts incurred of the estate from March 1902 to October 1906
when Munoz-Gomez was appointed as the actual administrator?
(2) Whether or not Maria Munoz’ appointment was void because she did not reside in the
Philippine islands at the time of her appointment as the guardian.

Court Ruling:

(a) Whether or not Teran, the former appointed guardian and administrator of the
minors’ estate, is liable for the debts incurred of the estate from March 1902 to October
1906 when Munoz-Gomez was appointed as the actual administrator?

The Court ruled that Teran is NOT liable. If any loss occurred to herein petitioner from
March 1902 to October 1906, the period wherein Munoz-Gomez was appointed
administrator, he has a right of action only against Munoz-Gomez as the appointed legal
guardian under the law and the administratix of the property of their estate.
The administrator of an estate belonging to minors is liable for the management of
their interests therein from the time of his acceptance of the appointment until his
removal or release. If such administrator has, in the meantime, permitted other persons to
intervene in the management, the responsibility for their acts fall upon him.

(b) Whether or not Maria Munoz’ appointment was void because she did not reside in the
Philippine islands at the time of her appointment as the guardian.

While there is nothing in the law which requires the courts to appoint residents
only as administrators or guardians; however, the courts, charged with the responsibility
of protecting the estates of the deceased persons, wards of the estate, will find much
difficulty in complying with this duty by appointing administrators and guardians who
are not personally subject to their jurisdiction. Notwithstanding the lack of statutory
requirement, the courts should not consent to the appointment of persons as
administrators and guardians who are not personally subject to the jurisdiction of the
court.