GR 74695; (September, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 74695 September 14, 1993
In the Matter of the Probate of the Last Will and Testament of the Deceased Brigido Alvarado, CESAR ALVARADO, petitioner, vs. HON. RAMON G. GAVIOLA, JR., Presiding Justice, HON. MA. ROSARIO QUETULIO LOSA and HON. LEONOR INES LUCIANO, Associate Justices, Intermediate Appellate Court, First Division (Civil Cases), and BAYANI MA. RINO, respondents.
FACTS
On November 5, 1977, the 79-year-old Brigido Alvarado executed a notarial will entitled “Huling Habilin,” disinheriting his illegitimate son (petitioner Cesar Alvarado) and revoking a previously executed holographic will. On December 29, 1977, he executed a codicil to the notarial will. In both instances, the testator did not personally read the final drafts due to his “poor,” “defective,” or “blurred” vision caused by glaucoma. Instead, the lawyer-drafter, respondent Bayani Ma. Rino, read the documents aloud in the presence of the testator, the three instrumental witnesses, and the notary public. The witnesses and notary followed the reading using their own copies. The testator affirmed the contents corresponded with his instructions. Upon Brigido Alvarado’s death, a petition for probate of the notarial will and codicil was filed. Petitioner Cesar Alvarado opposed the probate. The trial court admitted the will and codicil to probate, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. Petitioner appealed, contending the testator was blind under Article 808 of the Civil Code and the required double reading was not complied with.
ISSUE
1. Whether Brigido Alvarado was “blind” for purposes of Article 808 of the Civil Code at the time of the execution of his will and codicil.
2. Whether the double-reading requirement of Article 808 was complied with.
RULING
1. Yes, the testator was considered “blind” within the scope of Article 808. The Court ruled that Article 808 applies not only to totally blind testators but also to those who, for any reason, are “incapable of reading the will.” Since Brigido Alvarado was incapable of reading the drafts due to his poor, defective, or blurred vision, he falls within the term “blind” as used in the law.
2. Yes, there was substantial compliance with Article 808. While the letter of the law (requiring a reading by an instrumental witness and again by the notary public) was not strictly followed, its purpose was satisfied. The lawyer-drafter read the will and codicil aloud in the presence of the testator, the three instrumental witnesses, and the notary public. The testator affirmed the contents both prior to and during execution. The notary and witnesses also read the documents silently and confirmed the testator’s understanding and free will. The Court held that the solemnities for executing wills are intended to prevent fraud and ensure the testator’s wishes are known, not to be rigidly applied to defeat testamentary intent. Since the purpose of making the contents known to the incapacitated testator was accomplished, substantial compliance suffices. The petition was denied, and the Court of Appeals decision was affirmed.