Sei sulla pagina 1di 8

VOL.

226,SEPTEMBER14,1993

347

Alvarado vs. Gaviola, Jr.


*

G.R.No.74695.September14,1993.

IntheMatteroftheProbateoftheLastWillandTestament
of the Deceased Brigido Alvarado, CESAR ALVARADO,
petitioner,vs.HON. RAMON G. GAVIOLA, JR., Presiding
Justice,HON.MA.ROSARIOQUETULIOLOSAandHON.
LEONOR INES LUCIANO, Associate Justices,
Intermediate Appellate Court, First Division (Civil Cases),
andBAYANIMA.RINO,respondents.
Civil Law; Wills; Article 808 applies not only to blind testators
but also, to those who, for one reason or another, are incapable of
reading their wills.Clear from the foregoing is that Art. 808
applies not only to blind testators but also to those who, for one
reason or another, are incapable of reading the(ir) will(s). Since
BrigidoAlvaradowasincapableofreadingthefinaldraftsofhiswill
and codicil on the separate occasions of their execution due to his
poor, defective, or blurred vision, there can be no other course
forusbuttoconcludethatBrigidoAlvaradocomeswithinthescope
ofthetermblindasitisusedinArt.808.Unlessthecontentswere
read to him, he had no way of ascertaining whether or not the
lawyerwhodraftedthewillandcodicildidsoconformablywithhis
instructions.
Same; Same; Same; The purpose of reading the will twice is to
make known to the incapacitated testator the contents of the
document before signing and to give him an opportunity to object if
anything is contrary to his instructions.Article 808 requires that
in case of testators like Brigido Alvarado, the will shall be read
twice;once,byoneof
_______________
* FIRSTDIVISION.

348

348

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Alvarado vs. Gaviola, Jr.

theinstrumentalwitnessesand,again,bythenotarypublicbefore
whomthewillwasacknowledged.Thepurposeistomakeknownto
the incapacitated testator the contents of the document before
signing and to give him an opportunity to object if anything is
contrarytohisinstructions.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Court held in a number of occasions


that substantial compliance is acceptable where the purpose of the
law has been satisfied.This Court has held in a number of
occasions that substantial compliance is acceptable where the
purpose of the law has been satisfied, the reason being that the
solemnities surrounding the execution of wills are intended to
protect the testator from all kinds of fraud and trickery but are
never intended to be so rigid and inflexible as to destroy the
testamentaryprivilege.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Although there should be strict
compliance with the substantial requirements of the law in order to
insure the authenticity of the will, the formal imperfections should
be brushed aside when they do not affect its purpose and which,
when taken into account, may only defeat the testators will.The
spirit behind the law was served though the letter was not.
Although there should be strict compliance with the substantial
requirements of the law in order to insure the authenticity of the
will,theformalimperfectionsshouldbebrushedasidewhentheydo
not affect its purpose and which, when taken into account, may
onlydefeatthetestatorswill.

PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionofthe
CourtofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
Vicente R. Redorforpetitioner.
Bayani Ma. Rinoforandinhisownbehalf.
BELLOSILLO,J.:
Before
us is an appeal from the Decision dated 11 April
1
1986 of the First Civil Cases Division of the then
IntermediateAppellateCourt,nowCourtofAppeals,which
2
affirmed the Order dated 27 June 1983 of the Regional
TrialCourtofSta.Cruz,
_______________
1Rollo,pp.2937.
2PennedbyJudgeMaximianoC.Asuncion,OriginalRecords,pp.

349

VOL.226,SEPTEMBER14,1993

349

Alvarado vs. Gaviola, Jr.


3

Laguna, admitting
to probate the last will and testament
4
withcodicil ofthelateBrigidoAlvarado.
On 5 November 1977, the 79year old Brigido Alvarado
executed a notarial will entitled Huling Habilin wherein
he disinherited an illegitimate son (petitioner) and
expresslyrevokedapreviouslyexecutedholographicwillat
thetimeawaitingprobatebeforeBranch4oftheRegional
TrialCourtofSta.Cruz,Laguna.
As testified to by the three instrumental witnesses, the
notarypublicandbyprivaterespondentwhowerepresent
attheexecution,thetestatordidnotreadthefinaldraftof
thewillhimself.Instead,privaterespondent,asthelawyer

whodraftedtheeightpageddocument,readthesamealoud
in the presence of the testator, the three instrumental
witnessesandthenotarypublic.Thelatterfourfollowedthe
reading with their own respective copies previously
furnishedthem.
Meanwhile,Brigidosholographicwillwassubsequently
admittedtoprobateon9December1977.Onthe29thdayof
thesamemonth,acodicilentitledKasulatanngPagbabago
sa Ilang Pagpapasiya na Nasasaad sa Huling Habilin na
May Petsa Nobiembre 5, 1977 ni Brigido Alvarado was
executedchangingsomedispositionsinthenotarialwillto
generate cash for the testators eye operation. Brigido was
then suffering from glaucoma. But the disinheritance and
revocatory clauses were unchanged. As in the case of the
notarial will, the testator did not personally read the final
draft of the codicil. Instead, it was private respondent who
readitaloudinhispresenceandinthepresenceofthethree
instrumental witnesses (same as those of the notarial will)
andthenotarypublicwhofollowedthereadingusingtheir
owncopies.
Apetitionfortheprobateofthenotarialwillandcodicil
was filed upon the testators death on 3 January 1979 by
private respondent as executor with the Court of First5
Instance, now Regional Trial Court, of Siniloan, Laguna.
Petitioner,inturn,214224.
_______________
3ExhibitD,FolderofExhibits,pp.6572.
4ExhibitE,Id.,pp.7377.
5 Subsequently transferred to the Regional Trial Court, Br. 26, Sta.

Cruz,Laguna.
350

350

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Alvarado vs. Gaviola, Jr.

filed an Opposition on the following grounds: that the will


sought to be probated was not executed and attested as
required by law; that the testator was insane or otherwise
mentally incapacitated to make a will at the time of its
execution due to senility and old age; that the will was
executedunderduress,orinfluenceoffearorthreats;thatit
was procured by undue and improper pressure and
influence on the part of the beneficiary who stands to get
thelionsshareofthetestatorsestate;andlastly,thatthe
signatureofthetestatorwasprocuredbyfraudortrick.
Whentheoppositor(petitioner)failedtosubstantiatethe
groundsrelieduponintheOpposition,aProbateOrderwas
issuedon27June1983fromwhichanappealwasmadeto
respondent court. The main thrust of the appeal was that
thedeceasedwasblindwithinthemeaningofthelawatthe
time his Huling Habilin and the codicil attached thereto
wereexecuted;thatsincethereadingrequiredbyArt.808
oftheCivilCodewasadmittedlynotcompliedwith,probate
of the deceaseds last will and codicil should have been
denied.

On 11 April 1986, the Court of Appeals rendered the


decision under review with the following findings: that
BrigidoAlvaradowasnotblindatthetimehislastwilland
codicil were executed; that assuming his blindness, the
readingrequirementofArt.808wassubstantiallycomplied
withwhenbothdocumentswerereadaloudtothetestator
with each of the three instrumental witnesses and the
notary public following the reading with their respective
copies of the instruments. The appellate court then
concluded that although Art. 808 was not followed to the
letter,therewassubstantialcompliancesinceitspurposeof
making known to the testator the contents of the drafted
willwasserved.
Theissuesnowbeforeuscanbestatedthus:WasBrigido
Alvarado blind for purposes of Art. 808 at the time his
HulingHabilinanditscodicilwereexecuted?Ifso,wasthe
doublereadingrequirementofsaidarticlecompliedwith?
Regarding the first issue, there is no dispute on the
followingfacts:BrigidoAlvaradowasnottotallyblindatthe
timethewillandcodicilwereexecuted.However,hisvision
onbotheyeswasonlyofcountingfingersatthree(3)feet
byreasonoftheglaucomawhichhehadbeensufferingfrom
forseveralyearsandevenpriortohisfirstconsultationwith
aneyespecialiston14December1977.
351

VOL.226,SEPTEMBER14,1993

351

Alvarado vs. Gaviola, Jr.


Thepointofdisputeiswhethertheforegoingcircumstances
would qualify Brigido as a blind testator under Art. 808
whichreads:
Art.808.Ifthetestatorisblind,thewillshallbereadtohimtwice;
once,byoneofthesubscribingwitnesses,andagain,bythenotary
publicbeforewhomthewillisacknowledged.

Petitionercontendsthatalthoughhisfatherwasnottotally
blindwhenthewillandcodicilwereexecuted,hecanbeso
consideredwithinthescopeofthetermasitisusedinArt.
808. To support his stand, petitioner presented before the
trial court a medical certificate issued by Dr. Salvador R.
Salceda, Director of the Institute
of Opthalmology
6
(PhilippineEyeResearchInstitute), thecontentsofwhich
were interpreted in laymans terms by Dr. Ruperto Roasa,
7
whose expertise was admitted by private respondent. Dr.
Roasaexplainedthatalthoughthetestatorcouldvisualize
fingers at three (3) feet, he could no longer read either
printedorhandwrittenmattersasof14December1977,the
8
dayofhisfirstconsultation.
Ontheotherhand,theCourtofAppeals,contrarytothe
medicaltestimony,heldthatthetestatorcouldstillreadon
thedaythewillandthecodicilwereexecutedbutchosenot
9
todosobecauseofpooreyesight. Since the testator was
still capable of reading at that time, the court a quo
concludedthatArt.808neednotbecompliedwith.
Weagreewithpetitionerinthisrespect.
Regardless of respondents staunch contention that the

testatorwasstillcapableofreadingatthetimehiswilland
codicilwereprepared,thefactremainsandthiswastestified
tobyhiswitnesses,thatBrigidodidnotdosobecauseofhis
10
11
12
poor, defective, or blurred vision making it
necessaryforprivate
_______________
6FolderofExhibitsp.78.
7TSN,3August1982,p.6.
8Id.,pp.78.
9Rollo,p.36.
10TSN,18June1981,p.3;20August1981,p.4;16September1981,

p.5;1October1981,p.4.
11TSN,18June1981,p.3;1October1981,p.9.
12TSN,20August1981,p.4;5November1981,pp.1516;14

352

352

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Alvarado vs. Gaviola, Jr.

respondenttodotheactualreadingforhim.
13
The following pronouncement in Garcia vs. Vasquez
providesaninsightintothescopeofthetermblindnessas
usedinArt.808,towit:
The rationale behind the requirement of reading the will to the
testatorif he is blind or incapable of reading the will himself (as
when he is illiterate), is to make the provisions thereof known to
him,sothathemaybeabletoobjectiftheyarenotinaccordance
withhiswishesxxxx

ClearfromtheforegoingisthatArt.808appliesnotonlyto
blind testators but also to those who, for one reason or
another, are incapable of reading the(ir) will(s). Since
BrigidoAlvaradowasincapableofreadingthefinaldraftsof
his will and codicil on the separate occasions of their
execution due to his poor, defective, or blurred vision,
there can be no other course for us but to conclude that
BrigidoAlvaradocomeswithinthescopeofthetermblind
as it is used in Art. 808. Unless the contents were read to
him, he had no way of ascertaining whether or not the
lawyer who drafted the will and codicil did so conformably
withhisinstructions.Hence,toconsiderhiswillasvalidly
executed and entitled to probate, it is essential that we
ascertainwhetherArt.808hadbeencompliedwith.
Article808requiresthatincaseoftestatorslikeBrigido
Alvarado, the will shall be read twice; once, by one of the
instrumental witnesses and, again, by the notary public
beforewhomthewillwasacknowledged.Thepurposeisto
makeknowntotheincapacitatedtestatorthecontentsofthe
documentbeforesigningandtogivehimanopportunityto
objectifanythingiscontrarytohisinstructions.
That Art. 808 was not followed strictly is beyond cavil.
Insteadofthenotarypublicandaninstrumentalwitness,it
wasthelawyer(privaterespondent)whodraftedtheeight
paged will and the fivepaged codicil who read the same
aloudtothetestator,andreadthemonlyonce,nottwiceas

Art. 808 requires. Private respondent however insists that


therewassubstantialJanuary1982,p.16.
_______________
13No.L26884,30April1970,32SCRA490,502503.

353

VOL.226,SEPTEMBER14,1993

353

Alvarado vs. Gaviola, Jr.


complianceandthatthesinglereadingsufficesforpurposes
ofthelaw.Ontheotherhand,petitionermaintainsthatthe
onlyvalidcomplianceisastrictcomplianceorcomplianceto
the letter and since it is admitted that neither the notary
publicnoraninstrumentalwitnessreadthecontentsofthe
will and codicil to Brigido, probate of the latters will and
codicilshouldhavebeendisallowed.
We sustain private respondents stand and necessarily,
thepetitionmustbedenied.
This Court has held in a number of occasions that
substantial compliance is acceptable where the purpose of
the law has been satisfied, the reason being that the
solemnitiessurroundingtheexecutionofwillsareintended
to protect the testator from all kinds of fraud and trickery
but are never intended to be so rigid
and inflexible as to
14
destroythetestamentaryprivilege.
Inthecaseatbar,privaterespondentreadthetestators
will and codicil aloud in the presence of the testator, his
three instrumental witnesses, and the notary public. Prior
and subsequent thereto, the testator affirmed, upon being
asked, that the contents read corresponded with his
instructions. Only then did the signing and
acknowledgement take place. There is no evidence, and
petitioner does not so allege, that the contents of the will
and codicil were not sufficiently made known and
communicatedtothetestator.Onthecontrary,withrespect
totheHulingHabilin,thedayoftheexecutionwasnotthe
first time that Brigido had affirmed the truth and
authenticityofthecontentsofthedraft.Theuncontradicted
testimony of Atty. Rino is that Brigido Alvarado already
acknowledgedthatthewillwasdraftedinaccordancewith
hisexpressedwishesevenpriorto5November1977when
Atty.Rinowenttothetestatorsresidencepreciselyforthe
15
purposeofsecuringhisconformitytothedraft.
Moreover, it was not only Atty. Rino who read the
documents on 5 November and 29 December 1977. The
notarypublicandthe
_______________
14Icasianov.Icasiano,No.L18979,30June1964,11SCRA422, 429

430;Abanganv.Abangan,40Phil.476,479(1919);Reyv.Cartagena, 56
Phil. 282, 284285 (1931); Rodriguez v. Yap, 68 Phil. 126, 128 (1939);
Leynez v. Leynez, 68 Phil. 745, 750 (1939); Roxas v. De Jesus, Jr., No.
L38338,28January1985,134SCRA245,249.
15TSN,18June1981,p.4.

354

354

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Alvarado vs. Gaviola, Jr.

three instrumental witnesses likewise read the will and


codicil, albeit silently. Afterwards, Atty. Nonia de la Pena
(the notary public) and Dr. Crescente O. Evidente (one of
the three instrumental witnesses and the testators
physician) asked the testator whether the contents of the
documentswereofhisownfreewill.Brigidoansweredinthe
16
affirmative. Withfourpersonsfollowingthereadingword
for word with their own copies, it can be safely concluded
that the testator was reasonably assured that what was
read to him (those which he affirmed were in accordance
withhisinstructions),werethetermsactuallyappearingon
thetypewrittendocuments.Thisisespeciallytruewhenwe
considerthefactthatthethreeinstrumentalwitnesseswere
personsknowntothetestator,onebeinghisphysician(Dr.
Evidente) and another (Potenciano C. Ranieses) being
knowntohimsincechildhood.
The spirit behind the law was served though the letter
was not. Although there should be strict compliance with
the substantial requirements of the law in order to insure
theauthenticityofthewill,theformalimperfectionsshould
be brushed aside when they do not affect its purpose and
which, when17taken into account, may only defeat the
testatorswill.
Asafinalwordtoconvincepetitioneroftheproprietyof
the trial courts Probate Order and its affirmance by the
CourtofAppeals,wequotethefollowingpronouncementin
18
Abangan v. Abangan, towit:
Theobjectofthesolemnitiessurroundingtheexecutionofwillsisto
closethedooragainstbadfaithandfraud,toavoidthesubstitution
of wills and testaments and to guaranty their truth and
authenticity. Therefore the laws on the subject should be
interpretedinsuchawayastoattaintheseprimordialends.But,on
theotherhand,alsoonemustnotlosesightofthefactthatit is not
the object of the law to restrain and curtail the exercise of the right
to make a will. So when an interpretation already given assures
such ends, any other interpretation whatsoever, that adds nothing
but demands more requisites entirely unnecessary, useless and
frustrative of the testators will, must be
_______________
16TSN,16September1981,pp.45;14January1982,pp.6,12.
17Rodriguezv.Yap,68Phil.126,128(1939).
1840Phil.477,479(1919).

355

VOL.226,SEPTEMBER14,1993
Alvarado vs. Gaviola, Jr.
disregarded(italicssupplied).

355

BrigidoAlvaradohadexpressedhislastwishesinclearand
unmistakabletermsinhisHulingHabilinandthecodicil
attached thereto. We are unwilling to cast these aside for
the mere reason that a legal requirement intended for his
protection was not followed strictly when such compliance
hadbeenrenderedunnecessarybythefactthatthepurpose
ofthelaw,i.e.,tomakeknowntotheincapacitatedtestator
the contents of the draft of his will, had already been
accomplished. To reiterate, substantial compliance suffices
wherethepurposehasbeenserved.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDENIEDandtheassailed
DecisionofrespondentCourtofAppealsdated11April1986
isAFFIRMED.Consideringthelengthoftimethatthiscase
has remained pending, this decision is immediately
executory.Costsagainstpetitioner.
SOORDERED.
Cruz (Chairman), GrioAquino, Davide, Jr. and
Quiason, JJ.,concur.
Petition denied. Appealed decision affirmed.
Note.When the authenticity of the will is not being
questioned, there is no necessity of presenting the three
witnesses required under Article 811 of the Civil Code
(Rivera vs. Intermediate Appellate Court,182SCRA322).
o0o
356

Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Potrebbero piacerti anche