In re estate of Johnson Facts:

Emil Johnson was born in Sweden but emigrated to the US and lived in Chicago, Illinois from 1893 to 1898. He was
also married to Rosalie Ackeson and few months after their marriage, Ebba Ingeborg was born. Emil embarked to
the Philippines as a soldier in the Army of the US. After he was discharged as a soldier, he continued to live in the
Philippines. His wife obtained a divorce decree. A little later Johnson appeared in the US on a visit and on Jan. 10,
1903, procured a certificate of naturalization at Chicago. He then returned to the Manila where he prospered in
business and continued to live until his death.

While in the Philippines, he entered into marital relations with Alejandra Ibanez whom he had 3 children.

On Sept. 9, 1915, Emil executed a HW which was executed in accordance with the laws of the State of Illinois. Emil
died on Feb. 4, 1916 in Manila.
The HW was signed by himself and 2 witnesses instead of 3 witnesses as required by the Philippine law.

A petition for probate was filed before the CFI Manila which the latter after due publication and examination of the
witnesses declared the HW as legal and admitted to be admitted to probate.

The attorneys of Ebba moved for the annulment of the probate on the ground that the will was not executed in
accordance with Illinois Law and that the decedent was not a resident of the State of Illinois.

ISSUE: Whether Sec. 636 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to wills of aliens residing in the
Philippines.

RULING: It is applicable.

Will made here by alien. A will made within the Philippine Islands by a citizen or subject of another state or
country, which is executed in accordance with the law of the state or country of which he is a citizen or subject, and
which might be proved and allowed by the law of his own state or country, may be proved, allowed, and recorded
in the Philippine Islands, and shall have the same effect as if executed according to the laws of these Islands.

The words "another state or country" include the United States and the States of the American Union, and that the
operation of the statute is not limited to wills of aliens. It is a rule of hermeneutics that punctuation and
capitalization are aids of low degree in interpreting the language of a statute and can never control against the
intelligible meaning of the written words.

It results that if Emil H. Johnson was at the time of his death a citizen of the United States and of the State of
Illinois, his will was provable under this section in the courts of the Philippine Islands, provided the instrument was
so executed as to be admissible to probate under the laws of the State of Illinois.

ISSUE: Whether the testator was not a resident of the Stet of Illinois.

RULING: He is a national of Illinois.

The naturalization laws of the United States require, as a condition precedent to the granting of the certificate of
naturalization, that the applicant should have resided at least five years in the United States and for one year within
the State or territory where the court granting the naturalization papers is held; and in the absence of clear proof
to the contrary it should be presumed that a person naturalized in a court of a certain State thereby becomes a
citizen of that State as well as of the United States.

It is noteworthy that the petition by which it is sought to annul the probate of this will does not assert that the
testator was not a citizen of Illinois at the date when the will was executed. The most that is said on this point is he
was "never a resident of the State of Illinois after the year 1898, but became and was a resident of the city of
Manila," etc. But residence in the Philippine Islands is compatible with citizenship in Illinois; and it must be
considered that the allegations of the petition on this point are, considered in their bearing as an attempt to refute
citizenship in Illinois, wholly insufficient.

The evidence adduced upon this point in the trial court consists of the certificate of naturalization granted upon
January 10, 1903, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, in connection with certain biographical facts
contained in the oral evidence. The certificate of naturalization supplies incontrovertible proof that upon the date
stated the testator became a citizen of the United States, and inferentially also a citizen of said State. In the
testimony submitted to the trial court it appears that, when Johnson first came to the United States as a boy, he
took up his abode in the State of Illinois and there remained until he came as a soldier in the United States Army to
the Philippine Islands. Although he remained in these Islands for sometime after receiving his discharge, no
evidence was adduced showing that at the time he returned to the United States, in the autumn of 1902, he had
then abandoned Illinois as the State of his permanent domicile, and on the contrary the certificate of naturalization
itself recites that at that time he claimed to be a resident of Illinois.

Now, if upon January 10, 1903, the testator became a citizen of the United States and of the State of Illinois, how
has he lost the character of citizen with respect to either of these jurisdictions? There is no law in force by virtue of
which any person of foreign nativity can become a naturalized citizen of the Philippine Islands; and it was,
therefore, impossible for the testator, even if he had so desired, to expatriate himself from the United States and
change his political status from a citizen of the United States to a citizen of these Islands. This being true, it is to be
presumed that he retained his citizenship in the State of Illinois along with his status as a citizen of the United
States. It would be novel doctrine to Americans living in the Philippine Islands to be told that by living here they
lose their citizenship in the State of their naturalization or nativity.

This is in accordance with that provision of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
which says that every citizen of the United States is a citizen of the State where in he resides.

ISSUE: Whether the will was executed in conformity with the statutes of the State of Illinois.

RULING: Yes.

The trial judge no doubt was satisfied that the will was properly executed by examining section 1874 of the Revised
Statutes of Illinois, as exhibited in volume 3 of Starr & Curtis's Annotated Illinois Statutes, 2nd ed., p. 426; and he
may have assumed that he could take judicial notice of the laws of Illinois under section 275 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. Nevertheless, even supposing that the trial court may have erred in taking judicial notice of the law of
Illinois on the point in question, such error is not now available to the petitioner, first, because the petition does
not state any fact from which it would appear that the law of Illinois is different from what the court found, and,
secondly, because the assignment of error and argument for the appellant in this court raises no question based on
such supposed error.