PRIL - #015

PCIB v Escolin

Doctrine: Foreign laws may not be taken judicial notice of and have to be proven like any other fact in dispute
between the parties in any proceeding, with the rare exceptional n instances when the said laws are already within
the actual knowledge of the court, such as when they are well and generally known, or they have been actually
ruled upon in other cases before it and none of the parties concerned claim otherwise.

Facts:
Linnie Jane Hodges, at the time of her death, was a citizen of Texas, USA but was domiciled in the Philippines. She
made a will bequeathing all her estate to her husband, Charles. There is also a provision that upon the death of the
surviving spouse, the remainder of what has been inherited by the surviving spouse from the earlier deceased
spouse would be bequeathed to the brothers and sisters of the later deceased. Charles was appointed special
administrator and later executor of the will. No liquidation was made. Upon death of Mr. Hodges, Magno, the most
trusted employee of the spouses, was appointed Administratix of Mrs. Hodges estate and was initially also Mr.
Hodges' estate but PCIB took over. Probate proceedings for both estate initiated, the two administrators (PCIB and
Magno) differed in the alleged share of Mrs. Hodges in their conjugal partnership property that she could have
bequeathed to her heirs.

PCIB: Inasmuch as Mrs. Hodges was a resident of the Philippines at the time of her death, under said Article 16,
construed in relation to the pertinent laws of Texas and the principle of renvoi, what should be applied here should
be the rules of succession under the Civil Code of the Philippines, and, therefore, her estate could consist of no
more than one-fourth of the said conjugal properties, the other fourth being, as already explained, the legitime of
her husband (Art. 900, Civil Code) which she could not have disposed of nor burdened with any condition (Art. 872,
Civil Code).

Magno: Denies that Mrs. Hodges died a resident of the Philippines, since allegedly she never changed nor intended
to change her original residence of birth in Texas, United States of America, and contends that, anyway, regardless
of the question of her residence, she being indisputably a citizen of Texas, under said Article 16 of the Civil Code,
the distribution of her estate is subject to the laws of said State which, according to her, do not provide for any
legitime, hence, the brothers and sisters of Mrs. Hodges are entitled to the remainder of the whole of her share of
the conjugal partnership properties consisting of one-half thereof.

Issue/s:
WON the Texas Law should apply.

Held/Ratio:
The Supreme Court held that for what the Texas law is on the matter, is a question of fact to be resolved by the
evidence that would be presented in the probate court. Texas law at the time of her death (and not said law at any
other time).

Digested by: Bern