Alvardo vs Gaviola GR No.

74695

Doctrine: Art. 808 requires that in case of blind testators, the will must be read twice; once
by one of the instrumental witnesses, and again, by the notary public before whom the will
was acknowledged. The purpose is to make known to the incapacitated testator the contents
of the document before signing and to give him the opportunity to object if anything is
contrary to his instructions. However, substantial compliance therewith is acceptable
where the purpose of the law has been satisfied.

Facts:
79 year old Alvarado who was suffering from glaucoma executed a will where he
disinherited his illegitimate son (petitioner) and revoked a previously executed
holographic will.
Alvarado did not read the final draft of the will himself, but the lawyer who drafted
the will read the same aloud in the presence of Alvarado, the three instrumental
witnesses and the notary public all of whom followed the reading with their own
copies.
A few days later, a codicil was executed changing some dispositions in the notarial
will to generate cash for the testators eye operation but the disinheritance and
revocatory clause were unchanged. The codicil was read in the same manner as
those of the notarial will. (see above)
On probate, petitioner filed an Opposition on the following grounds:
1. The will was not executed and attested as required by law;
2. The testator was insane or mentally incapacitated to make a will at the time
of its execution due to senility and old age;
3. That the will was executed under duress, or influence of fear or threats
4. That the signature of the testator was procured by fraud
The Oppositor failed to substantiate the grounds for opposition thus a probate was
ordered by the RTC. An appeal was made on the following grounds:
o The testator was blind at the time the will and codicil were executed, and
that the reading required for blind testators in Art. 808 was complied with.

CA Ruling: That the testator was not blind and assuming his blindness, the reading
requirement of Art. 808 was substantially complied with.

Issues:
1. WON Alvarado was blind at the time of execution of the will and codicil?
2. If so, was the double reading requirement complied with?

SC Ruling:
1. There is no dispute that Alvarado was not totally blind at the time the will
and codicil were executed. However, his vision on both eyes was only of
counting fingers at 3 feet. Petitioner presented a medical certificate of the
first eye consultation of Alvarado showing that he could no longer read
either printed or handwritten matters. On the other hand, the CA held that
the testator could still read on the day the will and codicil were executed but
chose not to do so because of his poor eyesight.

In the case of Garcia vs Vasquez, we held that Art. 808 apply not only to the blind
but also to those incapable of reading the will himself. Since Alvarado was
incapable of reading the will and codicil due to his poor eyesight, it can be
concluded that Alvarado comes within the scope of blind as it is used in Art.
808, hence it is essential that we ascertain whether Art. 808 had been complied
with.

2. Art. 808 requires that in case of blind testators, like Alvarado, the will shall
be read twice; once, by one of the instrumental witnesses and, again, by the
notary public before whom the will was acknowledge. The purpose is to
make known to the incapacitated testator the contents of the document
before signing and to give him an opportunity to object.

Obviously, Art. 808 was not followed strictly as it was the lawyer who
drafted the will who read the same aloud to the testator and read them only
once not twice.

However, this Court has held in a number of occasions that substantial

compliance is acceptable where the purpose of the law has been satisfied.
The solemnities surrounding the executions of the wills are intended to
protect the testator from all kinds of fraud but are never intended to be so
rigid and inflexible as to destroy the testamentary privilege.

In the case at bar, the will and codicil was read aloud in the presence of the
testator, three instrumental witnesses, and the notary public the testator
also affirmed that the contents read corresponded with his instructions and
only then did the signing and acknowledgement took place. Moreover, it was
not only Atty. Rino (the lawyer who drafted the will) who read the will, the
notary public and the three witnesses likewise read it although silently.
Likewise, the notary public and Dr. Evidente (one of the witnesses, the
testators physician) asked the testator whether the contents were of his
own free will which was answered in the affirmative by the testator.

With all the witnesses and the notary public following the reading word by
word with their own copies, it can be safely concluded that the testator was
reasonably assured that what was read to him were the terms actually
appearing on the typewritten documents. More so, the witnesses were
persons known to the testator, his physician and his childhood friend.

The spirit behind the law was served though the letter was not.