G.R. No. L-27200, August 18, 1972
TESTATE ESTATE OF GLICERIA A. DEL ROSARIO, deceased, CONSUELO S. GONZALES VDA. DE PRECILLA, petitioner-administratrix, vs. SEVERINA NARCISO, ROSA NARCISO, JOSEFA NARCISO, VICENTE MAURICIO, DELFEN MAURICIO, REMEDIOS NARCISO, ENCARNACION NARCISO, MARIA NARCISO, EDUARDO NARCISO, FR. LUCIO V. GARCIA, ANTONIO JESUS DE PRAGA, MARIA NATIVIDAD DE JESUS-DR. JAIME ROSARIO, ET AL., NATIVIDAD DEL ROSARIO-SARMIENTO, and PASCUALA NARCISO-MANAHAN, oppositors-appellants.

FACTS

This case involves the probate of the last will and testament of the late Gliceria A. del Rosario. The oppositors-appellants contested the will, alleging that the decedent could not have read it before signing due to her impaired eyesight. The record established that Gliceria had undergone cataract operations on both eyes. Her right eye was operated on in 1954, and Dr. Jesus Tamesis operated on her left eye in August 1960. The contested will was executed on December 29, 1960. The petitioner-administratrix presented the three instrumental witnesses and the notary public, who testified that the decedent read the will silently in their presence before signing it. In opposition, evidence from ophthalmologist Dr. Tamesis was presented regarding her visual acuity.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the decedent, Gliceria del Rosario, given her medical condition following bilateral cataract operations, was capable of reading the will herself at the time of its execution, or whether she should be considered “not unlike a blind testator,” thereby requiring the special formalities under Article 808 of the Civil Code.

RULING

The Court, in its main resolution, voted to remand the case to the trial court for the reception of further evidence on the decedent’s capacity to read. The legal logic hinges on the insufficiency of the current record to conclusively determine this factual question. The resolution found ambiguity in Dr. Tamesis’s testimony, as it focused on visual acuity for distant vision without a definitive statement on her capacity to read ordinary print at near distance. This created serious doubt as to whether the professional medical testimony was sufficient to overthrow the direct and credible evidence of the subscribing witnesses, which the trial court had believed. Since a will embodies the testator’s solemn mandate, justice demands that all factual uncertainties be resolved. A remand is thus necessary to ascertain whether the normal formalities of Article 805 were complied with or if the special procedures for a blind testator under Article 808 were required but not followed. The separate opinion of Justice Reyes, J.B.L., dissented, arguing that no further evidence was needed. He contended that the medical record conclusively showed that with her natural lenses removed and replaced by rigid external glasses, the decedent had lost the physiological power of accommodation for near vision. Therefore, even with 20/20 distant vision, she would have been unable to read the will, placing her in a situation analogous to blindness and necessitating compliance with Article 808.