second week art 805-809-part b- succession word

8/10/2019 Second Week Art 805-809-Part B- Succession WORD

1/69

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-26615. April 30, 1970.]

REV. FATHER LUCIO V. GARCIA, ANTONIO JESUS DE

PRAGA, MARIA NATIVIDAD DE JESUS AND DR. JAIME

ROSARIO,petitioners,vs .HON. CONRADO M.VASQUEZ, asJudge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch and

CONSUELO GONZALES VDA. DE PRECILLA,respondents.

[G.R. No. L-26884. April 30, 1970.]

REV. FATHER LUCIO V. GARCIA, ANTONIO JESUS DE PRAGA,

MARIA NATIVIDAD DE JESUS AND DR. JAIME

ROSARIO,petitioners,vs .HON. CONRADO M.VASQUEZ, as Judgeof the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch V, REGISTER OF

DEEDS OF MANILA, and CONSUELO GONZALES VDA. DE

PRECILLA,respondents.

[G.R. No. L-27200. April 30, 1970.]

TESTATE ESTATE OF GLICERIA A. DEL ROSARIO, deceasedCONSUELO S. GONZALES VDA. DE PRECILLA,petitioneradministratrix,vs .SEVERINA NARCISO, ROSA NARCISO,JOSEFINA NARCISO, VICENTE MAURICIO, DELFIN MAURICIO,

REMEDIOS NARCISO, ENCARNACION, NARCISO, MARIA

NARCISO, EDUARDO NARCISO, FR. LUCIO V. GARCIA, ANTONIO

JESUS DE PRAGA, MARIA NATIVIDAD DE JESUS, DR. JAIME DEL

ROSARIO, ET AL., NATIVIDAD DEL ROSARIO-SARMIENTO and

PASCUALA NARCISO-MANAHAN, oppositors-appellants.

Antonio Enrile Inton for petitioner Rev. Father Lucio V. Garcia.

Pedro V. Garcia for petitioner Antonio Jesus de Praga, et al.

Leandro Sevilla & Ramon C. Aquino andMelquiades M. Virata, Jr. forrespondent Consuelo S. Gonzales Vda. de Precilla.


2/69

Lorenzo C. Gella for respondent Register of Deeds of Manila. Leandro Sevilla &Ramon C. Aquino for petitioner administratrix.

Castro, Makalintal & Associates for oppositors-appellants Encarnacion Narciso,et al.

Pedro Garcia for oppositors-appellants Dr. Jaime Rosario, et al.

Antonio Enrile Inton for oppositors-appellants Fr. Lucio V. Garcia and AntonioJesus de Praga.

Salonga, Ordoez, Yap, Sicat & Associates for oppositors-appellants SeverinaNarciso, et al.

George G. Arbolario andSixto R. Reyes & Vicente Redor for oppositors-appellants Natividad del Rosario Sarmiento, et al.

SYLLABUS

1.CIVIL LAW; SUCCESSION, WILLS; PROBATE OF WILLS; GROUND FORDISALLOWANCE; TESTATRIX'S DEFECTIVE EYESIGHT AS UNABLING HERTO READ THE PROVISIONS OF LATER WILL.The declarations in court of theopthalmologist as to the condition of the testatrix's eyesight fully establish the factthat her vision remained mainly for viewing distant objects and not for readingprint; that she was, at the time of the execution of the second will on December29, 1960, incapable of reading and could not have read the provisions of the willsupposedly signed by her.

2.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; IRREGULARITIES IN THE EXECUTION OF THE WILL;CASE AT BAR.Upon its face, the testamentary provisions, the attestationclause and acknowledgment were crammed together into a single sheet ofpaper, apparently to save on space. Plainly, the testament was not prepared withany regard for the defective vision of Da. Gliceria, the typographical errors

remained uncorrected thereby indicating that the execution thereof must havebeen characterized by haste. It is difficult to understand that so important adocument containing the final disposition of one's worldly possessions should beembodied in an informal and untidy written instrument; or that the glaring spellingerrors should have escaped her notice if she had actually retained the ability toread the purported will and had done so.


3/69

3.ID.; ID.; ID.; EXECUTION OF WILLS; REQUISITES FOR VALIDITY; ART. 808,NEW CIVIL CODE READING OF THE WILL TWICE TO A BLIND TESTATOR;PURPOSE.The rationale behind the requirement of reading the will to thetestator if he is blind or incapable of reading the will himself is to make the

provisions thereof known to him, so that he may be able to object if they are notin accordance with his wishes.

4.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; NOT COMPLIED WITH IN INSTANT CASE.Whereas in the 1960 will there is nothing in the record to show that the requisites of Art.808 of the Civil Code of the Philippines that "if the testator is blind, the will shallbe read to him twice," have not been complied with, the said 1960 will suffer frominfirmity that affects its due execution.

5.REMEDIAL LAW; SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE OF DECEASED PERSONS;ADMINISTRATORS; GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL; ACQUISITION OFINTEREST ADVERSE TO THAT OF THE ESTATE MAKES THEADMINISTRATOR UNSUITABLE TO DISCHARGE THE TRUST; CASE ATBAR.Considering that the alleged deed of sale was executed when Gliceria delRosario was already practically blind and that the consideration given seemsunconscionably small for the properties, there was likelihood that a case forannulment might be filed against the estate or heirs of Alfonso Precilla. And theadministratrix being the widow and heir of the alleged transferee, cannot be

expected to sue herself in an action to recover property that may turn out tobelong to the estate. This, plus her conduct in securing new copies of the owner'sduplicate of titles without the court's knowledge and authority and having thecontract bind the land through issuance of new titles in her husband's name,cannot but expose her to the charge of unfitness or unsuitability to discharge thetrust, justifying her removal from the administration of the estate.

6.REMEDIAL LAW; NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS; ACTION MUST AFFECT "THETITLE OR THE RIGHT OF POSSESSION OF REAL PROPERTY."On the

matter of lis pendens, the provisions of the Rules of Court are clear: notice of thependency of an action may be recorded in the office of the register of deeds ofthe province in which the property is situated, if the action affects "the title or theright of possession of (such) real property."

7.ID.; ID.; ID.; NOT APPLICABLE TO INSTANT CASE.The issue incontroversy here is simply the fitness or unfitness of said special administratrix to


4/69

continue holding the trust, it does not involve or affect at all the title to, orpossession of, the properties covered by TCT Nos. 81735, 81736 and 81737.Clearly, the pendency of such case (L-26615) is not an action that can properlybe annotated in the record of the titles to the properties.

D E C I S I O N

REYES, J.B.L.,J p:

G.R. No. L-27200 is an appeal from the order of the Court of First Instance ofManila (in Sp. Proc. No. 62618) admitting to probate the alleged last will an,

testament of the late Gliceria Avelino del Rosario dated 29 December 1960. G.R.Nos. L-26615 and L-2684 are separate petitions for mandamus filed by certainalleged heirs of said decedent seeking (1) to compel the probate court to removeConsuelo S. Gonzales-Precilla as special administratrix of the estate, for conflictof interest, to appoint a new one in her stead; and (2) to order the Register ofDeeds of Manila to annotate notice of lis pendensin TCT Nos. 81735, 81736,and 81737, registered in the name of Alfonso Precilla, married to ConsueloGonzales y Narciso, and said to be properly belonging to the estate of thedeceased Gliceria A. del Rosario.

Insofar as pertinent to the issues involved herein, the facts of these cases maybe stated as follows:

Gliceria Avelino del Rosario died unmarried in the City of Manila on 2 September1965, leaving no descendents, ascendants, brother or sister. At the time of herdeath, she was said to be 90 years old more or less, and possessed of an estateconsisting mostly of real properties.

On 17 September 1965, Consuelo S. Gonzales Vda. de Precilla, a niece of the

deceased, petitioned the Court of First Instance of Manila for probate of thealleged last will and testament of Gliceria A. del Rosario, executed on 29December 1960, and for her appointment as special administratrix of the latter'sestate, said to be valued at about P100,000.00, pending the appointment of aregular administrator thereof.


5/69

The petition was opposed separately by several groups of alleged heirs: (1) Rev.Fr. Lucio V. Garcia, a legatee named in an earlier will executed by Gliceria A. delRosario on 9 June 1956; (2) Jaime Rosario and children, relatives and legateesin both the 1956 and 1960 wills; Antonio Jesus de Praga and Marta Natividad de

Jesus, wards of the deceased and legatees in the 1956 and 1960 wills; (3)Remedios, Encarnacion, and Eduardo, all surnamed Narciso; (4) Natividad delRosario-Sarmiento; (5) Maria Narciso; (6) Pascuala Narciso de Manahan; (7)Severina, Rosa and Josefa, surnamed Narciso, and Vicente and Delfin,surnamed Mauricio, the latter five groups of persons all claiming to be relativesof Doa Gliceria within the fifth civil degree. The oppositions invariably chargedthat the instrument executed in 1960 was not intended by the deceased to be hertrue will; that the signatures of the deceased appearing in the will was procured

through undue and improper pressure and influence the part of the beneficiariesand/or other persons; that the testatrix did not know the object of her bounty; thatthe instrument itself reveals irregularities in its execution, and that the formalitiesrequired by law for such execution have not been complied with.

Oppositor Lucio V. Garcia, who also presented for probate the 1956 will of thedeceased, joined the group of Dr. Jaime Rosario in registering opposition to theappointment of petitioner Consuelo S. Gonzales Vda. de Precilla as specialadministratrix, on the ground that the latter possesses interest adverse to the

estate. After the parties were duly heard, the probate court, in its order of 2October 1965, granted petitioner's prayer and appointed her specialadministratrix of the estate upon a bond for P30,000.00. The order was premisedon the fact the petitioner was managing the properties belonging to the estateeven during the lifetime of the deceased, and to appoint another person asadministrator or co administrator at that stage of the proceeding would only resultin further confusion and difficulties.

On 30 September 1965, oppositors Jaime Rosario, et al. filed with the probatecourt an urgent motion to require the Hongkong & Shanghai Bank to report allwithdrawals made against the funds of the deceased after 2 September 1965.The court denied this motion on 22 October 1965 for being premature, it beingunaware that such deposit in the name of the deceased existed. 1


6/69

On 14 December 1965, the same sets of oppositors, Dr. Jaime Rosario andchildren, Antonio Jesus de Praga, Natividad de Jesus and Fr. Lucio V. Garcia,petitioned the court for the immediate removal of the special administratrix. It wastheir claim that the special administratrix and her deceased husband, Alfonso

Precilla, 2had caused Gliceria A. del Rosario to execute a simulated andfraudulent deed of absolute sale dated 10 January 1961 allegedly conveying untosaid spouses for the paltry sum of P30,000.00 ownership of 3 parcels of land andthe improvements thereon located on Quiapo and San Nicolas, Manila, with atotal assessed value of P334,050.00. Oppositors contended that since it is theduty of the administrator to protect and conserve the properties of the estate, andit may become necessary that, an action for the annulment of the deed of saleland for recovery of the aforementioned parcels of land be filed against the

special administratrix, as wife and heir of Alfonso Precilla, the removal of the saidadministratrix was imperative.

On 17 December 1965, the same oppositors prayed the court for an orderdirecting the Special Administratrix to deposit with the Clerk of Court allcertificates of title belonging to the estate. It was alleged that on 22 October1965, or after her appointment, petitioner Consuelo Gonzales Vda. de Precilla, inher capacity as special administratrix of the estate of the deceased Gliceria A.del Rosario, filed with Branch IV of the Court of First Instance of Manila a motion

for the issuance of new copies of the owner's duplicates of certain certificates oftitle in the name of Gliceria del Rosario, supposedly needed by her "in thepreparation of the inventory" of the properties constituting the estate. The motionhaving been granted, new copies of the owner's duplicates of certificatesappearing the name of Gliceria del Rosario (among which were TCT Nos. 66201,66202 and 66204) were issued on 15 November 1965. On 8 December 1965,according to the oppositors, the same special administratrix presented to theRegister of Deeds the deed of sale involving properties covered by TCT Nos.66201, 66202 and 66204 supposedly executed by Gliceria del Rosario on 10

January 1961 in favor of Alfonso Precilla, and, in consequence, said certificatesof title were cancelled and new certificates (Nos. 81735, 81736 and 81737) wereissued in the name of Alfonso Precilla, married to Consuelo S. Gonzales yNarciso.

On 25 August 1966, the Court issued an order admitting to probate the 1960 willof Gliceria A. del Rosario (Exhibit "D"). In declaring the due execution of the will,


7/69

the probate court took note that no evidence had been presented to establishthat the testatrix was not of sound mind when the will was executed; that the factthat she had prepared an earlier will did not, prevent her from executing anotherone thereafter; that the fact that the 1956 will consisted of 12 pages whereas the

1960 testament was contained in one page does not render the latter invalid;that, the erasures and alterations in the instrument were insignificant to warrantrejection; that the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the instrumental witnesseswhich were noted by the oppositors are even indicative of their truthfulness. Theprobate court, also considering that petitioner had already shown capacity toadminister the properties of the estate and that from the provisions of the will shestands as the person most concerned and interested therein, appointed saidpetitioner regular administratrix with a bond for P50,000.00. From this order all

the oppositors appealed, the case being docketed in this Court as G.R. No. L-27200.

Then, on 13 September 1966, the probate court resolved the oppositors' motionof 14 December 1965 for the removal of the then special administratrix, asfollows:

"It would seem that the main purpose of the motion to remove the

special administratrix and to appoint another one in her stead, is in order

that an action may be filed against the special administratrix for the

annulment of the deed of sale executed by the decedent on January 10,1961. Under existing documents, the properties sold pursuant to the said

deed of absolute sale no longer forms part of the estate. The alleged

conflict of interest is accordingly not between different claimants of the

same estate. If it is desired by the movants that an action be filed by

them to annul the aforesaid deed absolute sale, it is not necessary that

the special administratrix be removed and that another one be appointed

to file such action. Such a course of action would only produce confusion

and difficulties in the settlement of the estate. The movants may file the

aforesaid proceedings, preferably in an independent action, to secure

the nullity of the deed of absolute even without leave of this court:"

As regard the motion of 17 December 1965 asking for the deposit in court of thetitles in the name of the decedent, the same was also denied, for the reason thatif the movants were referring to the old titles, they could no longer be produced,


8/69

and if they meant the new duplicate copies thereof that were issued at theinstance of the special administratrix, there would be no necessity therefor,because they were already cancelled and other certificates were issued in thename of Alfonso Precilla. This order precipitated the oppositors' filing in this Court

of a petition for mandamus (G.R. No. L-26615, Rev. Fr. Lucio V. Garcia, et al. vs.Hon. Judge Conrado M. Vasquez, et al.), which was given due course on 6October 1966.

On 15 December 1965, with that motion for removal pending in the court, theoppositors requested the Register of Deeds of Manila to annotate a notice of lis

pendensin the records of TCT Nos. 81735, 81736, and 81737 in the name ofAlfonso Precilla. And when said official refused to do so, they applied to theprobate court (in Sp. Proc. No. 62618) for an order to compel the Register of

Deeds to annotate a lis pendensnotice in the aforementioned titles contendingthat the matter of removal and appointment of the administratrix, involving TCTNos. 81735, 81736, and 81737, was already before the Supreme Court. Upondenial of this motion on 12 November 1966, oppositors filed another mandamusaction, this time against the probate court and the Register of Deeds. The casewas docketed and given due course in this Court as G.R. No. L-26864.

Foremost of the questions to be determined here concerns the correctness of theorder allowing the probate of the 1960 will.

The records of the probate proceeding fully establish the fact that the testatrix,Gliceria A. del Rosario, during her lifetime, executed two wills: one on 9 June1956 consisting of 12 pages and written in Spanish, a language that she knewand spoke, witnessed by Messrs. Antonio Cabrera, Jesus Y. Ayala and ValentinMarquez, and acknowledged before notary public Jose Ayala; and another dated29 December 1960, consisting of 1 page and written in Tagalog, witnessed byMessrs. Vicente Rosales, Francisco Decena, and Francisco Lopez andacknowledged before notary public Remigio M. Tividad.

Called to testify on the due execution of the 1960 will, instrumental witnessesDecena, Lopez and Rosales uniformly declared that they were individuallyrequested by Alfonso Precilla (the late husband of petitioner specialadministratrix) to witness the execution of the last will of Doa Gliceria A. delRosario; that they arrived at the house of the old lady at No. 2074 Azcarraga,Manila, one after the other, in the afternoon of 29 December 1960; that the


9/69

testatrix at the time was apparently of clear and sound mind, although she wasbeing aided by Precilla when she walked; 3that the will, which was alreadyprepared, was first read "silently" by the testatrix herself before she signedit; 4that he three witnesses thereafter signed the will in the presence of the

testatrix and the notary public and of one another. There is also testimony thatafter the testatrix and the witnesses to the will acknowledged the instrument to betheir voluntary act and deed, the notary public asked for their respectiveresidence certificates which were handed to him by Alfonso Precilla, clippedtogether; 5that after comparing them with the numbers already written on the will,the notary public filled in the blanks in the instrument with the date, 29 January1960, before he affixed his signature and seal thereto. 6They also testified thaton that occasion no pressure or influence has been exerted by any person upon

the testatrix to execute the will.Of course, the interest and active participation of Alfonso Precilla in the signing ofthis 1960 will are evident from the records. The will appeared to have beenprepared by one who is not conversant with the spelling of Tagalog words, and ithas been shown that Alfonso Precilla is a Cebuano who speaks Tagalog with aVisayan accent. 7The witnesses to the will, two of whom are fellowVisayans, 8admitted their relationship or closeness to Precilla. 9It was Precillawho instructed them to go to the house of Gliceria del Rosario on 29 December

1960 to witness an important document,10

and who took their residencecertificates from them a few days before the will was signed. 11Precilla had metthe notary public and witnesses Rosales and Lopez at the door of the residenceof the old woman; he ushered them to the room at the second floor where thesigning of the document took place; 12then he fetched witness Decena from thelatter's haberdashery shop a few doors away and brought him to, the house thetestatrix. 13And when the will was actually executed Precilla was present. 14

The oppositors-appellants in the present case, however, challenging thecorrectness of the probate court's ruling, maintain that on 29 December 1960 theeyesight of Gliceria del Rosario was so poor and defective that she could nothave read the provisions of the will, contrary to the testimonies of witnessesDecena, Lopez and Rosales.


10/69

On this point, we find the declarations in court of Dr. Jesus V. Tamesis verymaterial and illuminating. Said ophthalmologist, whose expertise was admitted byboth parties, testified, among other things, that when Doa Gliceria del Rosariosaw him for consultation on 11 March 1960 he found her left eye to have cataract

(opaque lens), 15and that it was "above normal in pressure", denoting a possibleglaucoma, a disease that leads to blindness 16As to the conditions of her righteye, Dr. Tamesis declared:

"QBut is there anything here in the entry appearing in the other

documents Exhibits 3-B, 3-C and 3-D from which you could inform

the court as to the condition of the vision of the patient as to the

right eve ?

"AUnder date of August 30, 1960, is the record of refraction. that is

setting of glass by myself which showed that the right eye with my

prescription of glasses had a vision of 2 over 60 (20/60) and for

the left eye with her correction 20 over 300 (20/300).

"QIn layman's language, Doctor, what is the significance of that notation

that the right had a degree of 20 over 60 (20/60)?

"AIt meant that eye at least would be able to recognize objects or

persons at a minimum distance of twenty feet.

"QBut would that grade enable the patient to read print?

"AApparently that is only a record for distance vision, for distance sight,

not for near."

(pages 20-21, t.s.n., hearing of 23 March 1966)

The records also show that although Dr. Tamesis operated of the left eye ofthe decedent at the Lourdes Hospital on 8 August 1960; as of 23 August1960, inspite of the glasses her vision was only "counting fingers," 17at five

feet. The cross-examination of the doctor further elicited the followingresponses:

"QAfter she was discharged from the hospital you prescribed lenses for

her, or glasses?


11/69

"AAfter her discharge from the hospital, she was coming to my clinic for

further examination and then sometime later glasses were

prescribed.

xxx xxx xxx

"QAnd the glasses prescribed by you enabled her to read, Doctor?

"AAs far as my record is concerned, with the glasses for the left eye

which I prescribed the eye which I operated she could see

only forms but not read. That is on the left eye.

"QHow about the right eye?

"AThe same, although the vision on the right eye is even better than the

left eye." (pages 34. 85. t.s.n., hearing of 23 March 1966).

Then, confronted with a medical certificate (Exhibit H) issued by him on 29November 1965 certifying that Gliceria del Rosario was provided with aphakiclenses and "had been under medical supervision up to 1963 with apparentlygood vision", the doctor had this to say:

"QWhen yon said that she had apparently good vision you mean that

she was able to read?

"ANo, not necessarily, only able to go around, take care of herself and

see. This I can tell you, this report was made on purerecollections and I recall she was using her glasses although I

recall also that we have to give her medicines to improve her

vision, some medicines to improve her identification some more.

xxx xxx xxx

"QWhat about the vision in the right eve, was that corrected by the

glasses?

"AYes, with the new prescription which I issued on 80 August 1960. It isin the clinical record.

"QThe vision in the right eye was corrected?

"AYes That is the vision for distant objects."

(pages 38, 39, 40. t.s.n., hearing of 23 March 1966).


12/69

The foregoing testimony of the ophthalmologist who treated the deceased and,therefore, has first hand knowledge of the actual condition of her eyesight fromAugust, 1960 up to 1963, fully establish the fact that notwithstanding theoperation and removal of the cataract in her left eye and her being fitted with

aphakic lens (used by cataract patients), her vision remained mainly for viewingdistant objects and not for reading print. Thus, the conclusion is inescapable thatwith the condition of her eyesight in August, 1960, and there is no evidence that ithad improved by 29 December 1960, Gliceria del Rosario was incapable freading, and could not have read the provisions of the will supposedly signed byher on 29 December 1960. It is worth noting that the instrumental witnessesstated that she read the instrument "silently" (t.s.n., pages 164-165). which is aconclusion and not a fact.

Against the background of defective eyesight of the alleged testatrix, theappearance of the will, Exhibit "D", acquires striking significance. Upon its face,the testamentary provisions, the attestation clause and acknowledgment werecrammed together into a single sheet of paper, to much so that the words had tobe written very close on the top, bottom and two sides of the paper, leaving nomargin whatsoever; the word "and" had to be written by the symbol "&",apparently to save on space. Plainly, the testament was not prepared with anyregard for the defective vision of Doa Gliceria. Further, typographical errors like

"HULINH" for "HULING" (last), "Alfonsa" ;or "Alfonso", "MERCRDRS" forMERCEDES", "instrumental" for "Instrumental", and "acknowledged" for"acknowledge'', remained uncorrected, thereby indicating that execution thereofmust have been characterized by haste. It is difficult to understand that soimportant a document containing the final disposition of one's worldlypossessions should be embodied in an informal and untidily written instrument;or that the glaring spelling errors should have escaped her notice if she hadactually retained the ability to read the purported will and had done so. Therecord is thus convincing that the supposed testatrix could not have physically

read or understood the alleged testament, Exhibit "D", and that its admission toprobate was erroneous and should be reversed.

That Doa Gliceria should be able to greet her guests on her birthday, arrangeflowers and attend to kitchen tasks shortly prior to the alleged execution of thetestament Exhibit "D", as appears from the photographs, Exhibits "E" to "E-1", inno way proves; that she was able to read a closely typed page, since the acts


13/69

shown do not require vision at close range. It must be remembered that with thenatural lenses removed, her eyes had lost the power of adjustment to nearvision, the substituted glass lenses being rigid and uncontrollable by her. Neitheris the signing of checks (Exhibits "G" to "G-3") by her indicative of ability to see at

normal reading distances. Writing or signing of one's name, when sufficientlypracticed, becomes automatic, so that one need only to have a rough indicationof the place where the signature is to be affixed in order to be able to write it.Indeed, a close examination of the checks, amplified in the photograph, Exhibit"O", et seq., reinforces the contention of oppositors that the alleged testatrixcould not see at normal reading distance: the signatures in the checks are writtenfar above the printed base, lines, and the names of the payees as well as theamounts written do not appear to be in the handwriting of the alleged testatrix,

being in a much firmer and more fluid hand than hers.Thus, for all intents and purpose of the rules on probate, the deceased Gliceriadel Rosario was, as appellant oppositors contend, not unlike a blind testator, andthe due execution of her will would have required observance of the provisions ofArticle 808 of the Civil Code.

"ART. 808.If the testator is blind, the will shall be read to him twice;

once, by one of the subscribing witnesses, and again, by the notary

public before whom the will is acknowledged."

The rationale behind the requirement of reading the will to the testator if he isblind or incapable of reading the will himself (as when he is illiterate), 18is tomake the provisions thereof known to him, so that he may be able to object ifthey are not in accordance with his wishes. That the aim of the law is to insurethat the dispositions of the will are properly communicated to and understoodby the handicapped testator, thus making them truly reflective of his desire, isevidenced by the requirement that the will should be read to the latter, notonly once but twice, by two different persons, and that the witnesses have to

act within the range of his (the testator's) other senses. 19In connection with the will here in question, there is nothing in the records toshow that the above requisites have been complied with. Clearly, as alreadystated, the 1960 will sought to be probated suffers from infirmity that affects itsdue execution.


14/69

We also find merit in the complaint of oppositors Lucio V. Garcia, et al., againstthe denial by the probate court of their petition for the removal of ConsueloGonzales Vda. de Precilla as special administratrix of the estate of the deceasedDoa Gliceria (Petition, G.R. No. L-26615, Annex "B").

The oppositors' petition was based allegedly on the existence in the specialadministratrix of an interest adverse to that of the estate. It was their contentionthat through fraud her husband had caused the deceased Gliceria del Rosario toexecute a deed of sale, dated 10 January 1961, by virtue of which the latterpurportedly conveyed unto said Alfonso D. Precilla, married to ConsueloGonzales y Narciso, the ownership of 3 parcels of land and the improvementsthereon, assessed at P334,050.00, for the sum of P30,000.00.

In denying the petition, the probate court, in its order of 13 September 1966(Annex "P", Petition) reasoned out that since the properties were already sold nolonger form part of the estate. The conflict of interest would not be between theestate and third parties, but among the different claimants of said properties, inwhich case, according to the court, the participation of the special administratrixin the action for annulment that may be brought would not be necessary.

The error in this line of reasoning lies in the fact that what was being questionedwas precisely the validity of the conveyance or sale of the properties. In short, ifproper, the action for annulment would have to be undertaken on behalf of the

estate by the special administratrix, affecting as it does the property or rights ofthe deceased. 20For the rule is that only where there is no special proceeding forthe settlement of the estate of the deceased may the legal heirs commence anaction arising out of a right belonging to their ancestor. 21

There is no doubt that to settle the question of the due execution and validity ofthe deed of sale, an ordinary and separate action would have to be instituted, the

matter not falling within the competence of the probate court. 22Considering thefacts then before it, i.e., the alleged deed of sale having been executed byGliceria del Rosario on 10 January 1961, when she was already practically blind;and that the consideration of P30,000.00 seems to be unconscionably small forproperties with a total assessed value of P334,050.00, there was likelihood that acase for annulment might indeed be filed against the estate or heirs of Alfonso


15/69

Precilla. And the administratrix, being the widow and heir of the allegedtransferee, cannot be expected to sue herself in an action to recover propertythat may turn out to belong to the estate. 22Not only this, but the conduct of thespecial administratrix in securing new copies of the owner's duplicates of TCT

Nos. 66201, 66202, and 66204, without the court's knowledge or authority, andon the pretext that she needed them in the preparation of the inventory of theestate, when she must have already known by then that the properties coveredtherein were already "conveyed" to her husband by the deceased, being thelatter's successor, and having the contract bind the land through issuance of newtitles in her husband's name cannot but expose her to the charge of unfitness orunsuitableness to discharge the trust, justifying her removal from theadministration of the estate.

With respect to the orders of the court a quodenying (1) the oppositors' motion torequire the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank to report all withdrawals made againstthe funds of the deceased after 2 September 1965 and (2) the motion forannotation of a lis pendensnotice on TCT Nos. 81735, 81736 and 81737, thesame are to be affirmed.

The probate court pointed out in its order of 22 October 1965 (Annex "H") that itcould not have taken action on the complaint against the alleged withdrawalsfrom the bank deposits of the deceased, because as of that time the court had

not yet been apprised that such deposits exist. Furthermore, as explained by thespecial administratrix in her pleading of 30 October 1965, the withdrawalsreferred to by the oppositors could be those covered by checks issued in thename of Gliceria del Rosario during her lifetime butclearedonly after her death.That explanation, which not only appears plausible but has not been rebutted bythe petitioners-oppositors, negates any charge of grave abuse in connection withthe issuance of the order here in question.

On the matter of lis pendens(G.R. No. L-26864), the provisions of the Rules of

Court are clear: notice of the pendency of an action may be recorded in the officeof the register of deeds of the province in which the property is situated, if theaction affects "the title or the right of possession of (such) real property." 23In thecase at bar, the pending action which oppositors seek to annotate in the recordsof TCT Nos. 81735, 81736, and 81737 is the mandamus proceeding filed in thisCourt (G.R. No. L-26615). As previously discussed in this opinion, however, that


16/69

case is concerned merely with the correctness of the denial by the probate courtof the motion for the removal of Consuelo Gonzales Vda. de Precilla as specialadministratrix of the estate of the late Gliceria del Rosario. In short, the issue incontroversy there is simply the fitness or unfitness of said special administratrix

to continue holding the trust; it does not involve or affect at all the title to, orpossession of, the properties covered by said TCT Nos. 81735, 81736 and81737. Clearly, the pendency of such case (L-26615) is not an action that canproperly be annotated in the record of the titles to the properties.

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, the order of the court below allowing toprobate the alleged 1960 will of Gliceria A. del Rosario is hereby reversed andset aside. The petition in G.R. No. L-26615 being meritorious, the appealed orderis set aside and the court below is ordered to remove the administratrix,

Consuelo Gonzales Vda. de Precilla, and appoint one of the heirs intestate of thedeceased Doa Gliceria Avelino del Rosario as special administrator for thepurpose of instituting action on behalf of her estate to recover the propertiesallegedly sold by her to the late Alfonso D. Precilla. And in Case G.R. No. L-26864, petition is dismissed. No costs.

Concencion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Fernando, Teehankeeand Villamor,JJ.,concur.

Zaldivarand Castro, JJ.,took no part.

Barredo, J.,is on leave.

Footnotes

1.At that time, no inventory of the properties belonging to the estate has yet

been submitted by the special administratrix.

2.Precilla died on 17 July 1965 or before the death of Gliceria Rosario.

3.Page 24, hearing of 2 Dec. 1965; page 75, hearing of 3 Dec. 1965; page 61,

hearing of 22 Dec. 1965.

4.Pages 17, 31, hearing of 2 Dec. 1965; page 110, 3 Dec. 1965; page 61,

hearing of 22 Dec. 1965.

5.Page 15, hearing of 22 Dec. 1965.

6.Page 16, idem.


17/69

7.Page 58, t.s.n., hearing of 2 December 1965.

8.Pages 85, 86, t.s.n, hearing of 3 December 1965; pages 47, 48, t.s.n.,

hearing of 22 December 1965.

9.Pages 10, 37, t.s.n., hearing of 2 December 1965; page 83; t.s.n., hearing of3 December 1965; pages 37, 38, t.s.n., hearing of 22 December 1965.

10.Page 44, t.s.n., healing of 3 December 1965; pages 45-46, t.s.n., 22

December 1965.

11.Pages 69-70, t.s.n., hearing of 3 December 1965; page 47, t.s.n., hearing of

22 December 1965; page 30, t.s.n., 2 December, 1965.

12.Page 47, t.s.n., 3 December 1965; pages 54, 55, t.s.n. hearing of 22

December 1965; pages 35, 36, t.s.n., 21 January 1966.

13.Pages 14, 15, 2 December 1965.

14.Page 14, t.s.n., 1 December 1965; page 13, t.s.n., 3 December 1965; page

27, t.s.n., 22 December 1965; page 9, t.s.n., 21 January 1966.

15.Page 13, t.s.n., hearing of 23 March 1966.

16.Page 17, t.s.n., hearing of 23 March 1966.

17."Counting fingers" is a standard procedure adopted to determine the extent

of vision of a patient with very poor vision. (page 25, t.s.n., hearing of 23March 1966).

18.Article 808, New Civil Code.

19.Vol. III, Reyes and Puno, An Outline of Philippine Civil Law, 1967 ed., page

21, citingAlexander or Wills.

20.Section 2, Revised Rule 87.

21.Vera vs. Galauran, 67 Phil. 213.

22.Baquial vs. Amihan, 92 Phil. 501; Mallari vs. Mallari, 92 Phil. 694;

Ongsingco vs. Tan, 97 Phil. 330.

22aCf. Jaroda vs. Cusi, L-28214, 30 July 1969, 28 SCRA 1008.

23.Section 24, Revised Rule 14.


18/69

|||(Garcia v. Vasquez, G.R. No. L-26615, L-26884, L-27200, April 30, 1970)

FIRST DIVISION

[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.

Vicente R. Redor for petitioner.

Bayani Ma. Rinofor and in his own behalf.

SYLLABUS

1.CIVIL LAW; PROBATE OF WILL; ART. 808, NEW CIVIL CODE; SCOPE OF

THE TERM "BLINDNESS". The following pronouncement in Garcia vs.Vasquez provides an insight into the scope of the term "blindness" as used in Art.808, to wit: "The rationale behind the requirement of reading the will to thetestator ifhe is blind or incapable of reading the will himself (as when he isilliterate), is to make the provisions thereof known to him, so that he may be ableto object if they are not in accordance with his wishes . . ." Clear from theforegoing 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

Brigido Alvarado was incapable of reading the final drafts of his will and codicil onthe separate occasions of their execution due to his "poor," "defective," or"blurred" vision, there can be no other course for us but to conclude thatBrigido Alvarado 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


19/69

whether or not the lawyer who drafted the will and codicil did so conformably withhis instructions.

2.ID.; ID.; ID.; WILL MUST BE READ TWICE; PURPOSE. Article 808 requiresthat in case of testators like Brigido Alvarado, the will shall be read twice; once,by one of the instrumental witnesses and, again, by the notary public beforewhom the will was acknowledged. The purpose is to make known to theincapacitated testator the contents of the document before signing and to givehim an opportunity to object if anything is contrary to his instructions.

3.ID.; ID.; ID.; SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE THEREWITH, ACCEPTABLE;REASON. This Court has held in a number of occasions that substantialcompliance is acceptable where the purpose of the law has been satisfied, thereason being that the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills are intendedto protect the testator from all kinds of fraud and trickery but are never intendedto be so rigid and inflexible as to destroy the testamentary privilege. The spiritbehind the law was served though the letter was not. Although there should bestrict compliance with the substantial requirements of the law in order to insurethe authenticity of the will, the formal imperfections should be brushed asidewhen they do not affect its purpose and which, when taken into account, mayonly defeat the testator's will.

4.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. In the case at bar, private respondent read

the testator's will and codicil aloud in the presence of the testator, his threeinstrumental witnesses, and the notary public. Prior and subsequent thereto, thetestator affirmed, upon being asked, that the contents read corresponded with hisinstructions. Only then did the signing and acknowledgement take place. There isno evidence, and petitioner does not so allege, that the contents of the will andcodicil were not sufficiently made known and communicated to the testator. Onthe contrary, with respect to the "Huling Habilin," the day of the execution wasnot the first time that Brigido had affirmed the truth and authenticity of the

contents of the draft. The uncontradicted testimony of Atty. Rino is thatBrigido Alvarado already acknowledged that the will was drafted in accordancewith his expressed wishes even prior to 5 November 1977 when Atty. Rino wentto the testator's residence precisely for the purpose of securing his conformity tothe draft.


20/69

D E C I S I O N

BELLOSILLO,J p:

Before us is an appeal from the Decision dated 11 April 19861of the First CivilCases Division of the then Intermediate Appellate Court, now Court of Appeals,which affirmed the Order dated 27 June 19832of the Regional Trial Court of Sta.Cruz, Laguna, admitting to probate the last will and testament3with codicil4ofthe late Brigido Alvarado.

On 5 November 1977, the 79-year old Brigido Alvarado executed a notarial willentitled "Huling Habilin" wherein he disinherited an illegitimate son (petitioner)and expressly revoked a previously executed holographic will at the time awaitingprobate before Branch 4 of the Regional Trial Court of Sta. Cruz, Laguna.

As testified to by the three instrumental witnesses, the notary public and byprivate respondent who were present at the execution, the testator did not readthe final draft of the will himself. Instead, private respondent, as the lawyer whodrafted the eight-paged document, read the same aloud in the presence of thetestator, the three instrumental witnesses and the notary public. The latter fourfollowed the reading with their own respective copies previously furnished them.

Meanwhile, Brigido's holographic will was subsequently admitted to probate on 9December 1977. On the 29th day of the same month, a codicil entitled"Kasulatan ng Pagbabago sa Ilang Pagpapasiya na Nasasaad sa Huling Habilinna May Petsa Nobiembre 5, 1977 ni Brigido Alvarado" was executed changingsome dispositions in the notarial will to generate cash for the testator's eyeoperation. Brigido was then suffering from glaucoma. But the disinheritance andrevocatory clauses were unchanged. As in the case of the notarial will, thetestator did not personally read the final draft of the codicil. Instead, it was privaterespondent who read it aloud in his presence and in the presence of the three

instrumental witnesses (same as those of the notarial will) and the notary publicwho followed the reading using their own copies.

A petition for the probate of the notarial will and codicil was filed upon thetestator's death on 3 January 1979 by private respondent as executor with theCourt of First Instance, now Regional Trial Court, of Siniloan,
http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote1_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote1_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote1_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote2_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote2_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote2_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote3_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote3_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote3_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote4_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote4_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote4_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote4_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote3_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote2_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote1_0


21/69

Laguna.5Petitioner, in turn, filed an Opposition on the following grounds: that thewill sought to be probated was not executed and attested as required by law; thatthe testator was insane or otherwise mentally incapacitated to make a will at thetime of its execution due to senility and old age; that the will was executed under

duress, or influence of fear or threats; that it was procured by undue andimproper pressure and influence on the part of the beneficiary who stands to getthe lion's share of the testator's estate; and lastly, that the signature of thetestator was procured by fraud or trick.

When the oppositor (petitioner) failed to substantiate the grounds relied upon inthe Opposition, a Probate Order was issued on 27 June 1983 from which anappeal was made to respondent court. The main thrust of the appeal was that thedeceased was blind within the meaning of the law at the time his "Huling Habilin"

and the codicil attached thereto were executed; that since the reading requiredby Art. 808 of the Civil Code was admittedly not complied with, probate of thedeceased's last will and codicil should have been denied.

On 11 April 1986, the Court of Appeals rendered the decision under review withthe following findings: that Brigido Alvarado was not blind at the time his last willand codicil were executed; that assuming his blindness, the reading requirementof Art. 808 was substantially complied with when both documents were readaloud to the testator with each of the three instrumental witnesses and the notary

public following the reading with their respective copies of the instruments. Theappellate court then concluded that although Art. 808 was not followed to theletter, there was substantial compliance since its purpose of making known to thetestator the contents of the drafted will was served.

The issues now before us can be stated thus: Was Brigido Alvarado blind forpurposes of Art. 808 at the time his "Huling Habilin" and its codicil wereexecuted? If so, was the double-reading requirement of said article compliedwith?

Regarding the first issue, there is no dispute on the following facts:Brigido Alvarado was not totally blind at the time the will and codicil wereexecuted. However, his vision on both eyes was only of "counting fingers at three(3) feet" by reason of the glaucoma which he had been suffering from for severalyears and even prior to his first consultation with an eye specialist on 14December 1977.
http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote5_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote5_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote5_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote5_0


22/69

The point of dispute is whether the foregoing circumstances would qualify Brigidoas a "blind" testator under Art. 808 which reads:

"Art. 808.If the testator is blind, the will shall be read to him twice; once,

by one of the subscribing, witnesses, and again, by the notary public

before whom the will is acknowledged."

Petitioner contends that although his father was not totally blind when the will andcodicil were executed, he can be so considered within the scope of the term as itis used in Art. 808. To support his stand, petitioner presented before the trialcourt a medical certificate issued by Dr. Salvador R. Salceda, Director of theInstitute of Ophthalmology (Philippine Eye Research Institute),6the contents ofwhich were interpreted in layman's terms by Dr. Ruperto Roasa, whose expertisewas admitted by private respondent.7Dr. Roasa explained that although thetestator could visualize fingers at three (3) feet, he could no longer read eitherprinted or handwritten matters as of 14 December 1977, the day of his firstconsultation.8

On the other hand, the Court of Appeals, contrary to the medical testimony, heldthat the testator could still read on the day the will and the codicil were executedbut chose not to do so because of "poor eyesight."9Since the testator was stillcapable of reading at that time, the court a quo concluded that Art. 808 need notbe complied with.

We agree with petitioner in this respect.

Regardless of respondent's staunch contention that the testator was still capableof reading at the time his will and codicil were prepared, the fact remains and thiswas testified to by his witnesses, that Brigido did not do so because of his"poor,"10"defective, "11or "blurred"12vision making it necessary for privaterespondent to do the actual reading for him.

The following pronouncement in Garcia vs. Vasquez13provides an insight intothe scope of the term "blindness" as used in Art. 808, to wit:

"The rationale behind the requirement of reading the will to the

testator ifhe is blind or incapable of reading the will himself (as when he
http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote6_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote6_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote6_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote7_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote7_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote8_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote8_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote8_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote9_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote9_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote9_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote10_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote10_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote10_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote11_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote11_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote11_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote12_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote12_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote12_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote13_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote13_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote13_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote13_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote12_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote11_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote10_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote9_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote8_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote7_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote6_0


23/69

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 . . ."

Clear from the foregoing is that Art. 808 applies not only to blind testators butalso to those who, for one reason or another, are "incapable of reading the(ir)will(s)." Since Brigido Alvarado was incapable of reading the final drafts of his willand 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 toconclude that Brigido Alvarado comes within the scope of the term "blind" as it isused in Art. 808. Unless the contents were read to him, he had no way ofascertaining whether or not the lawyer who drafted the will and codicil did soconformably with his instructions. Hence, to consider his will as validly executedand entitled to probate, it is essential that we ascertain whether Art. 808 had

been complied with.

Article 808 requires that in case of testators like Brigido Alvarado, the will shall beread twice; once, by one of the instrumental witnesses and, again, by the notarypublic before whom the will was acknowledged. The purpose is to make knownto the incapacitated testator the contents of the document before signing and togive him an opportunity to object if anything is contrary to his instructions.

That Art. 808 was not followed strictly is beyond cavil. Instead of the notary publicand an instrumental witness, it was the lawyer (private respondent) who drafted

the eight-paged will and the five-paged codicil who read the same aloud to thetestator, and read them only once, not twice as Art. 808 requires.

Private respondent however insists that there was substantial compliance andthat the single reading suffices for purposes of the law. On the other hand,petitioner maintains that the only valid compliance is a strict compliance orcompliance to the letter and since it is admitted that neither the notary public noran instrumental witness read the contents of the will and codicil to Brigido,probate of the latter's will and codicil should have been disallowed.

We sustain private respondent's stand and necessarily, the petition must bedenied.

This Court has held in a number of occasions that substantial compliance isacceptable where the purpose of the law has been satisfied, the reason beingthat the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills are intended to protect the


24/69

testator from all kinds of fraud and trickery but are never intended to be so rigidand inflexible as to destroy the testamentary privilege.14

In the case at bar, private respondent read the testator's will and codicil aloud inthe presence of the testator, his three instrumental witnesses, and the notarypublic. Prior and subsequent thereto, the testator affirmed, upon being asked,that the contents read corresponded with his instructions. Only then did thesigning and acknowledgement take place. There is no evidence, and petitionerdoes not so allege, that the contents of the will and codicil were not sufficientlymade known and communicated to the testator. On the contrary, with respect tothe "Huling Habilin," the day of the execution was not the first time that Brigidohad affirmed the truth and authenticity of the contents of the draft. Theuncontradicted testimony of Atty. Rino is that Brigido Alvarado already

acknowledged that the will was drafted in accordance with his expressed wisheseven prior to 5 November 1977 when Atty. Rino went to the testator's residenceprecisely for the purpose of securing his conformity to the draft.15

Moreover, it was not only Atty. Rino who read the documents on 5 Novemberand 29 December 1977. The notary public and the three instrumental witnesseslikewise read the will and codicil, albeit silently. Afterwards, Atty. Nonia de laPena (the notary public) and Dr. Crescente O. Evidente (one of the threeinstrumental witnesses and the testator's physician) asked the testator whether

the contents of the documents were of his own free will. Brigido answered in theaffirmative.16With four persons following the reading word for word with theirown copies, it can be safely concluded that the testator was reasonably assuredthat what was read to him (those which he affirmed were in accordance with hisinstructions), were the terms actually appearing on the typewritten documents.This is especially true when we consider the fact that the three instrumentalwitnesses were persons known to the testator, one being his physician (Dr.Evidente) and another (Potenciano C. Ranieses) being known to him sincechildhood.

The spirit behind the law was served though the letter was not. Although thereshould be strict compliance with the substantial requirements of the law in orderto insure the authenticity of the will, the formal imperfections should be brushedaside when they do not affect its purpose and which, when taken into account,may only defeat the testator's will.17
http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote14_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote14_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote14_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote15_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote15_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote15_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote16_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote16_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote16_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote17_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote17_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote17_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote17_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote16_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote15_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote14_0


25/69

As a final word to convince petitioner of the propriety of the trial court's ProbateOrder and its affirmance by the Court of Appeals, we quote the followingpronouncement inAbangan v. Abangan,18to wit:

"The object of the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to

close the door against bad faith and fraud, to avoid the substitution of

wills and testaments and to guaranty their truth and authenticity.

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 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"(emphasis supplied).

Brigido Alvarado had expressed his last wishes in clear and unmistakable termsin his "Huling Habilin" and the codicil attached thereto. We are unwilling to castthese aside for the mere reason that a legal requirement intended for hisprotection was not followed strictly when such compliance had been renderedunnecessary by the fact that the purpose of the law, i.e., to make known to theincapacitated testator the contents of the draft of his will, had already been

accomplished. To reiterate, substantial compliance suffices where the purposehas been served.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision of respondentCourt of Appeals dated 11 April 1986 is AFFIRMED. Considering the length oftime that this case has remained pending, this decision is immediately executory.Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, Grio-Aquino, Davide, Jr. and Quiason, JJ ., concur.Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 29-37.

2.Penned by Judge Maximiano C. Asuncion Original Records, pp. 214 224.

3.Exhibit "D", Folder of Exhibits, pp. 65-72.
http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote18_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote18_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote18_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#fn1_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#fn2_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#fn3_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#fn3_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#fn2_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#fn1_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote18_0


26/69

4.Exhibit "E", Id., pp. 73-77.

5.Subsequently transferred to the Regional Trial Court, Br. 26, Sta. Cruz, Laguna.

6.Folder of Exhibits, p. 78.

7.TSN, 3 August 1992, p. 6.

8.Id., pp. 7-8.

9.Rollo, p. 36.

10.TSN, 18 June 1981, p. 3; 20 August 1981, p. 4; 16 September 1981, p. 5; 1

October 1981, p. 4.

11.TSN, 18 June 1981, p. 3; October 1981, p. 9.

12.TSN, 20 August 1981, p. 4; 5 November 1981, pp. 15-16; 14 January 1982, p. 16. 13.No. L-26884, 30 April 1970, 32 SCRA 490, 502-503.

14.Icasiano v. Icasiano, No. L-18979, 30 June 1964, 11 SCRA 422, 429-439;

Abangan v. Abangan, 40 Phil. 476, 479 (1919); Rey v. Cartagena, 56 Phil. 282,

284-285 (1931); Rodriguez v. Yap, 68 Phil. 126, 128 (1939); Leynez v Leynez,

68 Phil. 745, 750 (1939); Roxas v. De Jesus, Jr., No. L-38338, 28 January

1985, 134 SCRA 245, 249.

15.TSN, 18 June 1981, p. 4.

16.TSN, 16 September 1981, pp. 4-5; 14 January 1982, pp. 6, 12.

17.Rodriguez v. Yap, 68 Phil. 126, 128 (1939).

18.40 Phil. 477, 479 (1919).

|||(In re Alvarado v. Gaviola, Jr., G.R. No. 74695, September 14, 1993)

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 103554. May 28, 1993.]

TEODORO CANEDA, LORENZA CANEDA, TERESA CANEDA,

JUAN CABALLERO, AUREA CABALLERO, OSCAR LAROSA,
http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#fn4_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#fn5_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=alvarado+vs+gaviola&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#fn6_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/16361?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=16361&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bci

second week art 805-809-part b- succession word

Documents