G.R. No. 74695. September 14, 1993.
*
Same; Same; Same; Same; Court held in a number of occasions
In the Matter of the Probate of the Last Will and Testament of that substantial compliance is acceptable where the purpose of the law
the Deceased Brigido Alvarado, CESAR ALVARADO, has been satisfied.—This Court has held in a number of occasions that
petitioner, vs. HON. RAMON G. GAVIOLA, JR., Presiding substantial compliance is acceptable where the purpose of the law has
Justice, HON. MA. ROSARIO QUETULIO LOSA and HON. been satisfied, the reason being that the solemnities surrounding the
LEONOR INES LUCIANO, Associate Justices, Intermediate execution of wills are intended to protect the testator from all kinds of
Appellate Court, First Division (Civil Cases), and BAYANI MA. fraud and trickery but are never intended to be so rigid and inflexible
as to destroy the testamentary privilege.
RINO, respondents.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Although there should be strict
Civil Law; Wills; Article 808 applies not only to blind testators but compliance with the substantial requirements of the law in order to
also, to those who, for one reason or another, are “incapable of reading insure the authenticity of the will, the formal imperfections should be
their wills.”—Clear from the foregoing is that Art. 808 applies not only brushed aside when they do not affect its purpose and which, when
to blind testators but also to those who, for one reason or another, are taken into account, may only defeat the testator’s will.—The spirit
“incapable of reading the(ir) will(s).” Since Brigido Alvarado was behind the law was served though the letter was not. Although there
incapable of reading the final drafts of his will and codicil on the should be strict compliance with the substantial requirements of the
separate occasions of their execution due to his “poor,” “defective,” or law in order to insure the authenticity of the will, the formal
“blurred” vision, there can be no other course for us but to conclude that imperfections should be brushed aside when they do not affect its
Brigido Alvarado comes within the scope of the term “blind” as it is purpose and which, when taken into account, may only defeat the
used in Art. 808. Unless the contents were read to him, he had no way testator’s will.
of ascertaining whether or not the lawyer who drafted the will and
codicil did so conformably with his instructions. PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of
Appeals.
Same; Same; Same; The purpose of reading the will twice is to
make known to the incapacitated testator the contents of the document The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
before signing and to give him an opportunity to object if anything is Vicente R. Redor for petitioner.
contrary to his instructions.—Article 808 requires that in case of Bayani Ma. Rino for and in his own behalf.
testators like Brigido Alvarado, the will shall be read twice; once, by
one of the instrumental witnesses and, again, by the notary public BELLOSILLO, J.:
before whom the will was acknowledged. The purpose is to make known
to the incapacitated testator the contents of the document before Before us is an appeal from the Decision dated 11 April 1986 of 1
signing and to give him an opportunity to object if anything is contrary the First Civil Cases Division of the then Intermediate Appellate
to his instructions. Court, now Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Order dated 27
1
June 1983 of the Regional Trial Court of Sta. Cruz, Laguna,
2
Page
admitting to probate the last will and testament with codicil of
3 4
Regional Trial Court, of Siniloan, Laguna. Petitioner, in turn,
5
the late Brigido Alvarado. filed an Opposition on the following grounds: that the will sought
On 5 November 1977, the 79year old Brigido Alvarado to be probated was not executed and attested as required by law;
executed a notarial will entitled “Huling Habilin” wherein he that the testator was insane or otherwise mentally incapacitated
disinherited an illegitimate son (petitioner) and expressly revoked to make a will at the time of its execution due to senility and old
a previously executed holographic will at the time awaiting age; that the will was executed under duress, or influence of fear
probate before Branch 4 of the Regional Trial Court of Sta. Cruz, or threats; that it was procured by undue and improper pressure
Laguna. and influence on the part of the beneficiary who stands to get the
As testified to by the three instrumental witnesses, the notary lion’s share of the testator’s estate; and lastly, that the signature
public and by private respondent who were present at the of the testator was procured by fraud or trick.
execution, the testator did not read the final draft of the will
himself. Instead, private respondent, as the lawyer who drafted When the oppositor (petitioner) failed to substantiate the
the eightpaged document, read the same aloud in the presence of grounds relied upon in the Opposition, a Probate Order was
the testator, the three instrumental witnesses and the notary issued on 27 June 1983 from which an appeal was made to
public. The latter four followed the reading with their own respondent court. The main thrust of the appeal was that the
respective copies previously furnished them. deceased was blind within the meaning of the law at the time his
Meanwhile, Brigido’s holographic will was subsequently “Huling Habilin” and the codicil attached thereto were executed;
admitted to probate on 9 December 1977. On the 29th day of the that since the reading required by Art. 808 of the Civil Code was
same month, a codicil entitled “Kasulatan ng Pagbabago sa Ilang admittedly not complied with, probate of the deceased’s last will
Pagpapasiya na Nasasaad sa Huling Habilin na May Petsa and codicil should have been denied.
Nobiembre 5, 1977 ni Brigido Alvarado” was executed changing
some dispositions in the notarial will to generate cash for the On 11 April 1986, the Court of Appeals rendered the decision
testator’s eye operation. Brigido was then suffering from under review with the following findings: that Brigido Alvarado
glaucoma. But the disinheritance and revocatory clauses were was not blind at the time his last will and codicil were executed;
unchanged. As in the case of the notarial will, the testator did not that assuming his blindness, the reading requirement of Art. 808
personally read the final draft of the codicil. Instead, it was was substantially complied with when both documents were read
private respondent who read it aloud in his presence and in the aloud to the testator with each of the three instrumental
presence of the three instrumental witnesses (same as those of witnesses and the notary public following the reading with their
the notarial will) and the notary public who followed the reading respective copies of the instruments. The appellate court then
using their own copies. concluded that although Art. 808 was not followed to the letter,
A petition for the probate of the notarial will and codicil was there was substantial compliance since its purpose of making
2
filed upon the testator’s death on 3 January 1979 by private known to the testator the contents of the drafted will was served.
Page
respondent as executor with the Court of First Instance, now
The issues now before us can be stated thus: Was Brigido On the other hand, the Court of Appeals, contrary to the
Alvarado blind for purposes of Art. 808 at the time his “Huling medical testimony, held that the testator could still read on the
Habilin” and its codicil were executed? If so, was the day the will and the codicil were executed but chose not to do so
doublereading requirement of said article complied with? because of “poor eyesight.” Since the testator was still capable of
9
reading at that time, the court a quo concluded that Art. 808 need
Regarding the first issue, there is no dispute on the following not be complied with.
facts: Brigido Alvarado was not totally blind at the time the will
and codicil were executed. However, his vision on both eyes was We agree with petitioner in this respect.
only of “counting fingers at three (3) feet” by reason of the Regardless of respondent’s staunch contention that the
glaucoma which he had been suffering from for several years and testator was still capable of reading at the time his will and
even prior to his first consultation with an eye specialist on 14 codicil were prepared, the fact remains and this was testified to
December 1977. by his witnesses, that Brigido did not do so because of his
“poor,” “defective,” or “blurred” vision making it necessary for
10 11 12
The point of dispute is whether the foregoing circumstances private respondent to do the actual reading for him.
would qualify Brigido as a “blind” testator under Art. 808 which
reads: The following pronouncement in Garcia vs. Vasquez provides 13
“Art. 808. If the testator is blind, the will shall be read to him twice; an insight into the scope of the term “blindness” as used in Art.
once, by one of the subscribing witnesses, and again, by the notary 808, to wit:
public before whom the will is acknowledged.” “The rationale behind the requirement of reading the will to the
Petitioner contends that although his father was not totally blind testator if he is blind or incapable of reading the will himself (as when
when the will and codicil were executed, he can be so considered he is illiterate), is to make the provisions thereof known to him, so that
within the scope of the term as it is used in Art. 808. To support he may be able to object if they are not in accordance with his wishes x
his stand, petitioner presented before the trial court a medical x x x”
certificate issued by Dr. Salvador R. Salceda, Director of the Clear from the foregoing is that Art. 808 applies not only to blind
Institute of Opthalmology (Philippine Eye Research testators but also to those who, for one reason or another, are
Institute), the contents of which were interpreted in layman’s
6
“incapable of reading the(ir) will(s).” Since Brigido Alvarado was
terms by Dr. Ruperto Roasa, whose expertise was admitted by incapable of reading the final drafts of his will and codicil on the
private respondent. Dr. Roasa explained that although the
7
separate occasions of their execution due to his “poor,” “defective,”
testator could visualize fingers at three (3) feet, he could no or “blurred” vision, there can be no other course for us but to
longer read either printed or handwritten matters as of 14 conclude that Brigido Alvarado comes within the scope of the
December 1977, the day of his first consultation. 8
term “blind” as it is used in Art. 808. Unless the contents were
3
read to him, he had no way of ascertaining whether or not the
Page
lawyer who drafted the will and codicil did so conformably with
his instructions. Hence, to consider his will as validly executed kinds of fraud and trickery but are never intended to be so rigid
and entitled to probate, it is essential that we ascertain whether and inflexible as to destroy the testamentary privilege. 14
Art. 808 had been complied with.
In the case at bar, private respondent read the testator’s will
Article 808 requires that in case of testators like Brigido and codicil aloud in the presence of the testator, his three
Alvarado, the will shall be read twice; once, by one of the instrumental witnesses, and the notary public. Prior and
instrumental witnesses and, again, by the notary public before subsequent thereto, the testator affirmed, upon being asked, that
whom the will was acknowledged. The purpose is to make known the contents read corresponded with his instructions. Only then
to the incapacitated testator the contents of the document before did the signing and acknowledgement take place. There is no
signing and to give him an opportunity to object if anything is evidence, and petitioner does not so allege, that the contents of
contrary to his instructions. the will and codicil were not sufficiently made known and
communicated to the testator. On the contrary, with respect to
That Art. 808 was not followed strictly is beyond cavil. Instead the “Huling Habilin,” the day of the execution was not the first
of the notary public and an instrumental witness, it was the time that Brigido had affirmed the truth and authenticity of the
lawyer (private respondent) who drafted the eightpaged will and contents of the draft. The uncontradicted testimony of Atty. Rino
the fivepaged codicil who read the same aloud to the testator, is that Brigido Alvarado already acknowledged that the will was
and read them only once, not twice as Art. 808 requires. Private drafted in accordance with his expressed wishes even prior to 5
respondent however insists that there was substantial January November 1977 when Atty. Rino went to the testator’s residence
1982, p. 16. compliance and that the single reading suffices for precisely for the purpose of securing his conformity to the draft. 15
purposes of the law. On the other hand, petitioner maintains that
the only valid compliance is a strict compliance or compliance to Moreover, it was not only Atty. Rino who read the documents
the letter and since it is admitted that neither the notary public on 5 November and 29 December 1977. The notary public and the
nor an instrumental witness read the contents of the will and three instrumental witnesses likewise read the will and codicil,
codicil to Brigido, probate of the latter’s will and codicil should albeit silently. Afterwards, Atty. Nonia de la Pena (the notary
have been disallowed. public) and Dr. Crescente O. Evidente (one of the three
We sustain private respondent’s stand and necessarily, the instrumental witnesses and the testator’s physician) asked the
petition must be denied. testator whether the contents of the documents were of his own
free will. Brigido answered in the affirmative. With four persons
16
This Court has held in a number of occasions that substantial following the reading word for word with their own copies, it can
compliance is acceptable where the purpose of the law has been be safely concluded that the testator was reasonably assured that
satisfied, the reason being that the solemnities surrounding the what was read to him (those which he affirmed were in
4
execution of wills are intended to protect the testator from all accordance with his instructions), were the terms actually
Page
appearing on the typewritten documents. This is especially true
when we consider the fact that the three instrumental witnesses rendered unnecessary by the fact that the purpose of the law, i.e.,
were persons known to the testator, one being his physician (Dr. to make known to the incapacitated testator the contents of the
Evidente) and another (Potenciano C. Ranieses) being known to draft of his will, had already been accomplished. To reiterate,
him since childhood. substantial compliance suffices where the purpose has been
served.
The spirit behind the law was served though the letter was
not. Although there should be strict compliance with the WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the assailed
substantial requirements of the law in order to insure the Decision of respondent Court of Appeals dated 11 April 1986
authenticity of the will, the formal imperfections should be is AFFIRMED. Considering the length of time that this case has
brushed aside when they do not affect its purpose and which, remained pending, this decision is immediately executory. Costs
when taken into account, may only defeat the testator’s will. 17
against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
As a final word to convince petitioner of the propriety of the
Cruz (Chairman), GriñoAquino, Davide, Jr. and Quiason,
trial court’s Probate Order and its affirmance by the Court of
JJ., concur.
Appeals, we quote the following pronouncement in Abangan v.
Abangan, to wit:
18
Petition denied. Appealed decision affirmed.
“The object of the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to Note.—When the authenticity of the will is not being
close the door against bad faith and fraud, to avoid the substitution of questioned, there is no necessity of presenting the three witnesses
wills and testaments and to guaranty their truth and authenticity.
required under Article 811 of the Civil Code (Rivera vs.
Therefore the laws on the subject should be interpreted in such a way
as to attain these primordial ends. But, on the other hand, also one Intermediate Appellate Court, 182 SCRA 322).
must not lose sight of the fact that it 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 testator’s will, must be
disregarded” (italics supplied).
Brigido Alvarado had expressed his last wishes in clear and
unmistakable terms in his “Huling Habilin” and the codicil
attached thereto. We are unwilling to cast these aside for the
5
mere reason that a legal requirement intended for his protection
Page
was not followed strictly when such compliance had been
