In Re Probate of the Last Will and Testament of Brigido Alvarado, Cesar

Alvarado vs. Hon. Ramon Gaviola, Jr.

GR. No. 74695, September 14, 1993

Doctrines: Application of Art. 808: this Article applies not only to blind people but to those who, for
one reason or another, are incapable of reading their wills.
Substantial Compliance: Substantial compliance is acceptable when the purpose of the law has been
satisfied. Although there should be strict compliance with the substantial requirements of the law in order
to ensure 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
Recit-Ready Summary:
Brigido Alvarado executed a notarial will which effectively disinherited an illegitimate son of his and
superseded a holographic will he had executed years before. A codicil was subsequently executed which
changed some dispositions made in the notarial will (in order to generate money for the testator’s
Glaucoma surgery) but retained the stipulation of disinheritance. Both the notarial will and codicil were
executed in the same manner: the documents were read aloud to the testator, with four witnesses (3
witnesses and a notary) silently following with their own copies in hand. When the testator died, the
notarial will was submitted for probate with the illegitimate son Cesar opposing such on the ground that
the testator had been blind during the execution of the subject instruments and that the reading
requirement under Art. 808 was not followed. On appeal with the CA, the court found that the testator
was not blind during the execution of the notarial will and codicil and that there had been substantial
compliance with the requirements under Art. 808.
The issues are WON testator was blind and if the double-reading required in Art. 808 had been complied
with. The Court ruled that although the testator was not totally blind, he is considered as such for the
purposes of Art. 808 because it had been established that his eyesight was very poor due to his Glaucoma,
and that the law necessarily includes persons who cannot or are unable to read their wills themselves.
Second, the Court agreed with the CA that there had been substantial compliance with the double-reading
required by law – even though it was not read by the persons listed in Art. 808. The Court here explained
that it was sufficiently proven that the contents of the will and all the dispositional matters were made
known to, understood, and assented to by the testator.
Facts:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Issue:
1. WON the testator was blind for the purposes of Art. 808.
2. If so, was the double-reading requirement under the same article complied with.
Held:
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.