Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
226,SEPTEMBER14,1993
347
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.
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
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.
VOL.226,SEPTEMBER14,1993
351
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
353
VOL.226,SEPTEMBER14,1993
353
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.
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