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.

An appeal from the Decision of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Order of the Regional
Trial Court of Sta. Cruz, Laguna, admitting to probate the last will and testament with codicil of
the late BRIGIDO ALVARADO.

Doctrines:
1. Art. 808 applies not only to blind testators but also, to those
who, for one reason or another, are “incapable of reading their
wills.”
2. 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.
3. 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
testamentary privilege.
4. Doctrine of Liberal Interpretation - 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 testator’s will.

FACTS:
1.) In 1977 Brigido Alvarado executed a notarial will entitled “Huling Habilin” where he
disinherited an illegitimate son Cesar Alvarado (the petitioner) and revoked a previously
executed holographic will, which was at the time of the execution of the new will, was
already pending probate with the RTC in Laguna. The three instrumental witnesses, a
notary public, and the testator’s lawyer who drafted the will testified that:
 o the new will was not read by Alvarado himself;
o instead it was read out aloud to him his lawyer; and,
o the three witnesses and the notary public were reading their own respective copies as
the lawyer read it aloud.
2.) The holographic will was eventually admitted into probate a month after the execution of
the notarial will, and a few days later a codicil entitled “Kasulatan ng Pagbabago sa Ilang
Pagpapasiya na Nasasaad sa Huling Habilin na may Petsa Nobiembre 5, 1977 ni Brigido
Alvarado" was executed which effectively changed a number of the dispositions made in
the notarial will in order to generate cash for the testator’s eye surgery – because of
Glaucoma. It must be noted that the disinheritance and revocatory clauses of the notarial
will were left unchanged. The codicil was executed in the same manner as the notarial will:
not read by testator himself, but read aloud to him by his lawyer, and witnesses and notary
were present reading the will as well.
3.) Upon Alvarado’s death in 1979, the notarial will and codicil were filed for probate by the
testator’s lawyer and the petitioner Cesar filed his opposition to such. The oppositor mainly
contends that: will was not executed and attested in accordance with law; testator was
mentally incapacitated; will was executed under duress and improper pressure/influence;
and, the signature of the testator was procured through faud/trick.
4.) Oppositor failed to substantiate his claims before the RTC so a Probate Order was issued,
which was subsequently appealed to again by Cesar. His main contention this time was
that the testator was blind within the meaning of Art. 808 when the notarial will and codicil
were executed – and since the reading requirement under such article was not complied
with, the will and codicil must be denied. The CA denied Cesar’s appeal and ruled that the
testator was not blind at the time of execution and that there had been substantial
compliance with the reading requirement under Art. 808.
ISSUES:
1. WON the testator was blind for the purposes of Art. 808.
-YES
2. If so, was the double-reading requirement under the same article complied with. - --
-YES
RULING:
1. YES, as was testified to by witnesses, the testator did not read his will himself because of
his poor, defective or blurred vision which made it necessary for his lawyer to do it for
him.
- Although the testator was not totally blind during the execution of the will and subsequent
codicil, his vision on both eyes was only of “counting fingers at three feet” due to his severe
Glaucoma. Dr. Ruperto Roasa explained that although the testator could visualize fingers at
three feet, he could no longer read either printed or handwritten matters as early as 1977 during
the testator’s first consultation with the doctor. The CA erroneously found that the testator was
 still capable of reading and seeing on the day of the execution of the subject documents – in
Garcia v. Vasquez the Court explained that:
the rationale behind the requirement of reading the will to the testator if he is blind or
incapable of reading the will himself (as when he is illiterate), is to make the provisions
thereof known to him, so that he may be able to object if they are not in accordance with
his wishes
- Thus, Art. 808 applies not only to blind testators but also to those who are incapable of reading
their wills. Since the testator was incapable of reading the final drafts of his will and codicil
due to his poor vision, it can be concluded that he comes within the scope of the term "blind"
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 followed his instructions.

2. YES, there was substantial compliance with the double-reading requirement under Art.
808.

- It is argued by Cesar that the double-reading requirement was not followed because Art. 808
requires that the will be read to the testator by the notary public and one of the instrumental
witnesses. In this case, it was read twice but by the same person and he was neither the notary
nor a witness (it was the lawyer). However the Court agreed with the CA’s finding that there
was substantial compliance and 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 testamentary privilege.
- Furthermore, the Court found that respondent lawyer read the testator's will and codicil aloud
in the presence of the testator, his three instrumental witnesses, and the notary public.
However, prior and subsequent to such reading, the testator affirmed the contents of the will
when he was asked. Only after such affirmation did he sign and acknowledge the will. There
is no evidence that the contents of the will and codicil were not sufficiently made known
and communicated to the testator. On the contrary, not only did the testator affirm the will
on the day of its execution but also previously during its drafting – as proven by the lawyer’s
uncontradicted testimony that even before the official execution, the testator had already
expressed his assent to the contents of the notarial will days before.
- Moreover, it was not only the lawyer who read the documents, because the notary public
and the 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 instrumental witnesses and the testator's physician) asked the testator whether the contents
of the document were of his own free will, and the testator answered in the affirmative. With
four persons following the reading word 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 with his instructions), were the terms actually appearing on the
typewritten documents. This is highlighted by the fact that the all the witnesses were known to
the testator, one being his physician and the other a friend known to him since childhood.

Petition is denied, decision of the CA is affirmed.