GARCIA v.

VASQUEZ
G.R. No. L-26808 March 28, 1969

Fernando, J (Ponente)

FACTS: This is a petition for appeal from the CFI of Manila admitting to probate the will of Gliceria
Avelino del Rosario (“Gliceria”) executed in 1960. Likewise, this is also an appeal to remove the
current administrator, Consuelo Gonzales-Precilla( “Consuelo”) as special administratrix of the
estate on the ground of Consuelopossesses interest adverse to the estate and to order the RD of
Manila to annotate on the registered lands a notice of Lis Pendens.

When Gliceria died she had no descendants, ascendants, bros or sisses and 90 yrs old. After which,
her niece, Consuelo petitioned the court to be the administratrix of the properties. The court
approved this because Consuelo has been was already managing the properties of
the deceased during her lifetime. What the respondents allege is that in the last years of
the deceased, Consuelo sought the transfer of certain parcels of land valued at 300k for a sale price
of 30k to her husband Alfonso through fraud and intimidation. In addition, the oppositors presented
evidence that Consuelo asked the court to issue new Certificates of Titles to certain parcels of land
for the purpose of preparing the inventory to be used in the probate. Also shown was that NEW TCTs
were issued by the RD for certain lands of the deceased after Consuelo asked for the old TCTs.
At the end of the probate proceedings, the court ruled that Counsuelo should be made the
administrator, and that the will was duly executed because of these reasons: NO EVIDENCE HAS
BEEN PRESENTED to establish that the deceasedwas not of sound mind, that eventough the
allegations state that the deceasedprepared another will in 1956 (12pages), the latter is not
prevented from executing another will in 1960 (1page), and that inconsistencies in the testimonies
of the witnesses prove their truthfulness.

ISSUE: WON the page 1 of the will in 1960 duly/properly executed?

HELD: NO. Provision of Article 808 mandatory. Therefore, For all intents and purposes of the rules
on probate, the testatrix was like a blind testator, and the due execution of her will would have
required observance of Article 808. 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. Likewise, the 1970 will was done in Tagalog which the deceased is not well versed but in
Spanish. This creates doubt as to the due execution of the will and as well as the typographical errors
contain therein which show the haste in preparing the 1 page will as compared to the 12 page will
created in 1956 written in Spanish. ALSO, as to the blindness, there was proof given by the testimony
of the doctor that the deceased could not read at near distances because of cataracts. (Testatrix’s
vision was mainly for viewing distant objects and not for reading print.) Since there is no proof that
it was read to the deceased twice, the will was NOT duly executed. ALSO, Consuelo should be
removed as administrator because she is not expected to sue her own husband to re-convey the lands
to the estate alleged to have been transferred by the deceased to her own husband. The notice of lis
pendens is also not proper where the issue is not an action in rem, affecting real property or the title
thereto.