Alvarado v. Gaviola

7/4/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME226

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014e585994837c6e2fd3000a0094004f00ee/p/AKH076/?username=Guest 1/11

VOL. 226, SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 347Alvarado vs. Gaviola, Jr.

G.R. No. 74695. September 14, 1993.*

In the Matter of the Probate of the Last Will andTestament of the Deceased Brigido Alvarado, CESARALVARADO, petitioner, vs. HON. RAMON G. GAVIOLA,JR., Presiding Justice, HON. MA. ROSARIO QUETULIOLOSA and HON. LEONOR INES LUCIANO, AssociateJustices, Intermediate Appellate Court, First Division(Civil Cases), and BAYANI MA. RINO, respondents.

Civil Law Wills Article 808 applies not only to blind testatorsbut also, to those who, for one reason or another, are incapable ofreading their wills.Clear from the foregoing is that Art. 808applies not only to blind testators but also to those who, for onereason or another, are incapable of reading the(ir) will(s). SinceBrigido Alvarado was incapable of reading the final drafts of hiswill and codicil on the separate occasions of their execution due tohis poor, defective, or blurred vision, there can be no othercourse for us but to conclude that Brigido Alvarado comes withinthe scope of the term blind as it is used in Art. 808. Unless thecontents were read to him, he had no way of ascertaining whetheror not the lawyer who drafted the will and codicil did soconformably with his instructions.

Same Same Same The purpose of reading the will twice is tomake known to the incapacitated testator the contents of thedocument before signing and to give him an opportunity to object ifanything is contrary to his instructions.Article 808 requires thatin case of testators like Brigido Alvarado, the will shall be readtwice once, by one of

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.



348

348 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Alvarado vs. Gaviola, Jr.

the instrumental witnesses and, again, by the notary publicbefore whom the will was acknowledged. The purpose is to makeknown to the incapacitated testator the contents of the documentbefore signing and to give him an opportunity to object if anythingis contrary to his instructions.

Same Same Same Same Court held in a number ofoccasions that substantial compliance is acceptable where thepurpose of the law has been satisfied.This Court has held in anumber of occasions that substantial compliance is acceptablewhere the purpose of the law has been satisfied, the reason beingthat the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills areintended to protect the testator from all kinds of fraud andtrickery but are never intended to be so rigid and inflexible as todestroy the testamentary privilege.

Same Same Same Same Although there should be strictcompliance with the substantial requirements of the law in orderto insure the authenticity of the will, the formal imperfectionsshould be brushed aside when they do not affect its purpose andwhich, when taken into account, may only defeat the testators will.The spirit behind the law was served though the letter was not.Although there should be strict compliance with the substantialrequirements of the law in order to insure the authenticity of thewill, the formal imperfections should be brushed aside when theydo not affect its purpose and which, when taken into account, mayonly defeat the testators will.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision of theCourt of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.Vicente R. Redor for petitioner.Bayani Ma. Rino for and in his own behalf.

BELLOSILLO, J.:

Before us is an appeal from the Decision dated 11 April1986

1 of the First Civil Cases Division of the then

Intermediate Appellate Court, now Court of Appeals, which



affirmed the Order dated 27 June 19832 of the Regional

Trial Court of Sta. Cruz,

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 2937.2 Penned by Judge Maximiano C. Asuncion, Original Records, pp.

349


Laguna, admitting to probate the last will and testament3

with codicil4 of the late Brigido Alvarado.

On 5 November 1977, the 79year old Brigido Alvaradoexecuted a notarial will entitled Huling Habilin whereinhe disinherited an illegitimate son (petitioner) andexpressly revoked a previously executed holographic will atthe time awaiting probate before Branch 4 of the RegionalTrial Court of Sta. Cruz, Laguna.

As testified to by the three instrumental witnesses, thenotary public and by private respondent who were presentat the execution, the testator did not read the final draft ofthe will himself. Instead, private respondent, as the lawyerwho drafted the eightpaged document, read the same aloudin the presence of the testator, the three instrumentalwitnesses and the notary public. The latter four followedthe reading with their own respective copies previouslyfurnished them.

Meanwhile, Brigidos holographic will was subsequentlyadmitted to probate on 9 December 1977. On the 29th dayof the same month, a codicil entitled Kasulatan ngPagbabago sa Ilang Pagpapasiya na Nasasaad sa HulingHabilin na May Petsa Nobiembre 5, 1977 ni BrigidoAlvarado was executed changing some dispositions in thenotarial will to generate cash for the testators eyeoperation. Brigido was then suffering from glaucoma. Butthe disinheritance and revocatory clauses were unchanged.As in the case of the notarial will, the testator did notpersonally read the final draft of the codicil. Instead, it wasprivate respondent who read it aloud in his presence and inthe presence of the three instrumental witnesses (same asthose of the notarial will) and the notary public who



followed the reading using their own copies.A petition for the probate of the notarial will and codicil

was filed upon the testators death on 3 January 1979 byprivate respondent as executor with the Court of FirstInstance, now Regional Trial Court, of Siniloan, Laguna.

5

Petitioner, in turn, 214224.

_______________

3 Exhibit D, Folder of Exhibits, pp. 6572.4 Exhibit E, Id., pp. 7377.5 Subsequently transferred to the Regional Trial Court, Br. 26, Sta.

Cruz, Laguna.

350

350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDAlvarado vs. Gaviola, Jr.

filed an Opposition on the following grounds: that the willsought to be probated was not executed and attested asrequired by law that the testator was insane or otherwisementally incapacitated to make a will at the time of itsexecution due to senility and old age that the will wasexecuted under duress, or influence of fear or threats thatit was procured by undue and improper pressure andinfluence on the part of the beneficiary who stands to getthe lions share of the testators estate and lastly, that thesignature of the testator was procured by fraud or trick.

When the oppositor (petitioner) failed to substantiatethe grounds relied upon in the Opposition, a Probate Orderwas issued on 27 June 1983 from which an appeal wasmade to respondent court. The main thrust of the appealwas that the deceased was blind within the meaning of thelaw at the time his Huling Habilin and the codicilattached thereto were executed that since the readingrequired by Art. 808 of the Civil Code was admittedly notcomplied with, probate of the deceaseds last will andcodicil should have been denied.

On 11 April 1986, the Court of Appeals rendered thedecision under review with the following findings: thatBrigido Alvarado was not blind at the time his last will andcodicil were executed that assuming his blindness, thereading requirement of Art. 808 was substantially compliedwith when both documents were read aloud to the testator



with each of the three instrumental witnesses and thenotary public following the reading with their respectivecopies of the instruments. The appellate court thenconcluded that although Art. 808 was not followed to theletter, there was substantial compliance since its purposeof making known to the testator the contents of the draftedwill was served.

The issues now before us can be stated thus: WasBrigido Alvarado blind for purposes of Art. 808 at the timehis Huling Habilin and its codicil were executed? If so,was the doublereading requirement of said article compliedwith?

Regarding the first issue, there is no dispute on thefollowing facts: Brigido Alvarado was not totally blind atthe time the will and codicil were executed. However, hisvision on both eyes was only of counting fingers at three(3) feet by reason of the glaucoma which he had beensuffering from for several years and even prior to his firstconsultation with an eye specialist on 14 December 1977.

351


The point of dispute is whether the foregoing circumstanceswould qualify Brigido as a blind testator under Art. 808which reads:

Art. 808. If the testator is blind, the will shall be read to himtwice once, by one of the subscribing witnesses, and again, by thenotary public before whom the will is acknowledged.

Petitioner contends that although his father was not totallyblind when the will and codicil were executed, he can be soconsidered within the scope of the term as it is used in Art.808. To support his stand, petitioner presented before thetrial court a medical certificate issued by Dr. Salvador R.Salceda, Director of the Institute of Opthalmology(Philippine Eye Research Institute),

6 the contents of which

were interpreted in laymans terms by Dr. Ruperto Roasa,whose expertise was admitted by private respondent.

7 Dr.

Roasa explained that although the testator could visualizefingers at three (3) feet, he could no longer read eitherprinted or handwritten matters as of 14 December 1977,



the day of his first consultation.8

On the other hand, the Court of Appeals, contrary to themedical testimony, held that the testator could still read onthe day the will and the codicil were executed but chose notto do so because of poor eyesight.

9 Since the testator was

still capable of reading at that time, the court a quoconcluded that Art. 808 need not be complied with.

We agree with petitioner in this respect.Regardless of respondents staunch contention that the

testator was still capable of reading at the time his will andcodicil were prepared, the fact remains and this wastestified to by his witnesses, that Brigido did not do sobecause of his poor,

10 defective,

11 or blurred

12 vision

making it necessary for private

_______________

6 Folder of Exhibits p. 78.7 TSN, 3 August 1982, p. 6.8 Id., pp. 78.9 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 1 October 1981, p. 9.12 TSN, 20 August 1981, p. 4 5 November 1981, pp. 1516 14

352


respondent to do the actual reading for him.The following pronouncement in Garcia vs. Vasquez

13

provides an insight into the scope of the term blindnessas used in Art. 808, to wit:

The rationale behind the requirement of reading the will to thetestator if he is blind or incapable of reading the will himself (aswhen he is illiterate), is to make the provisions thereof known tohim, so that he may be able to object if they are not in accordancewith his wishes x x x x

Clear from the foregoing is that Art. 808 applies not only toblind testators but also to those who, for one reason oranother, are incapable of reading the(ir) will(s). Since



Brigido Alvarado was incapable of reading the final draftsof his will and codicil on the separate occasions of theirexecution 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 blindas it is used in Art. 808. Unless the contents were read tohim, he had no way of ascertaining whether or not thelawyer who drafted the will and codicil did so conformablywith his instructions. Hence, to consider his will as validlyexecuted and entitled to probate, it is essential that weascertain whether Art. 808 had been complied with.

Article 808 requires that in case of testators like BrigidoAlvarado, the will shall be read twice once, by one of theinstrumental witnesses and, again, by the notary publicbefore whom the will was acknowledged. The purpose is tomake known to the incapacitated testator the contents ofthe document before signing and to give him anopportunity to object if anything is contrary to hisinstructions.

That Art. 808 was not followed strictly is beyond cavil.Instead of the notary public and an instrumental witness,it was the lawyer (private respondent) who drafted theeightpaged will and the fivepaged codicil who read thesame aloud to the testator, and read them only once, nottwice as Art. 808 requires. Private respondent howeverinsists that there was substantial January 1982, p. 16.

_______________

13 No. L26884, 30 April 1970, 32 SCRA 490, 502503.

353


compliance and that the single reading suffices forpurposes of the law. On the other hand, petitionermaintains that the only valid compliance is a strictcompliance or compliance to the letter and since it isadmitted that neither the notary public nor aninstrumental witness read the contents of the will andcodicil to Brigido, probate of the latters will and codicilshould have been disallowed.

We sustain private respondents stand and necessarily,



the petition must be denied.This Court has held in a number of occasions that

substantial compliance is acceptable where the purpose ofthe law has been satisfied, the reason being that thesolemnities surrounding the execution of wills are intendedto protect the testator from all kinds of fraud and trickerybut are never intended to be so rigid and inflexible as todestroy the testamentary privilege.

14

In the case at bar, private respondent read the testatorswill and codicil aloud in the presence of the testator, histhree instrumental witnesses, and the notary public. Priorand subsequent thereto, the testator affirmed, upon beingasked, that the contents read corresponded with hisinstructions. Only then did the signing andacknowledgement take place. There is no evidence, andpetitioner does not so allege, that the contents of the willand codicil were not sufficiently made known andcommunicated to the testator. On the contrary, withrespect to the Huling Habilin, the day of the executionwas not the first time that Brigido had affirmed the truthand authenticity of the contents of the draft. Theuncontradicted testimony of Atty. Rino is that BrigidoAlvarado already acknowledged that the will was draftedin accordance with his expressed wishes even prior to 5November 1977 when Atty. Rino went to the testatorsresidence precisely for the purpose of securing hisconformity to the draft.

15

Moreover, it was not only Atty. Rino who read thedocuments on 5 November and 29 December 1977. Thenotary public and the

_______________

14 Icasiano v. Icasiano, No. L18979, 30 June 1964, 11 SCRA 422, 429430 Abangan v. Abangan, 40 Phil. 476, 479 (1919) Rey v. Cartagena, 56Phil. 282, 284285 (1931) Rodriguez v. Yap, 68 Phil. 126, 128 (1939)Leynez v. Leynez, 68 Phil. 745, 750 (1939) Roxas v. De Jesus, Jr., No. L38338, 28 January 1985, 134 SCRA 245, 249.

15 TSN, 18 June 1981, p. 4.

354




three instrumental witnesses likewise read the will andcodicil, albeit silently. Afterwards, Atty. Nonia de la Pena(the notary public) and Dr. Crescente O. Evidente (one ofthe three instrumental witnesses and the testatorsphysician) asked the testator whether the contents of thedocuments were of his own free will. Brigido answered inthe affirmative.

16 With four persons following the reading

word for word with their own copies, it can be safelyconcluded that the testator was reasonably assured thatwhat was read to him (those which he affirmed were inaccordance with his instructions), were the terms actuallyappearing on the typewritten documents. This is especiallytrue when we consider the fact that the three instrumentalwitnesses were persons known to the testator, one beinghis physician (Dr. Evidente) and another (Potenciano C.Ranieses) being known to him since childhood.

The spirit behind the law was served though the letterwas not. Although there should be strict compliance withthe substantial requirements of the law in order to insurethe authenticity of the will, the formal imperfections shouldbe brushed aside when they do not affect its purpose andwhich, when taken into account, may only defeat thetestators will.

17

As a final word to convince petitioner of the propriety ofthe trial courts Probate Order and its affirmance by theCourt of Appeals, we quote the following pronouncement inAbangan v. Abangan,

18 to wit:

The object of the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills isto close the door against bad faith and fraud, to avoid thesubstitution of wills and testaments and to guaranty their truthand authenticity. Therefore the laws on the subject should beinterpreted 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 itis not the object of the law to restrain and curtail the exercise of theright to make a will. So when an interpretation already givenassures such ends, any other interpretation whatsoever, that addsnothing but demands more requisites entirely unnecessary, uselessand frustrative of the testators will, must be

_______________

16 TSN, 16 September 1981, pp. 45 14 January 1982, pp. 6, 12.17 Rodriguez v. Yap, 68 Phil. 126, 128 (1939).18 40 Phil. 477, 479 (1919).



355


disregarded (italics supplied).

Brigido Alvarado had expressed his last wishes in clear andunmistakable terms in his Huling Habilin and the codicilattached thereto. We are unwilling to cast these aside forthe mere reason that a legal requirement intended for hisprotection was not followed strictly when such compliancehad been rendered unnecessary by the fact that thepurpose of the law, i.e., to make known to the incapacitatedtestator the contents of the draft of his will, had alreadybeen accomplished. To reiterate, substantial compliancesuffices where the purpose has been served.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the assailedDecision of respondent Court of Appeals dated 11 April1986 is AFFIRMED. Considering the length of time thatthis case has remained pending, this decision isimmediately executory. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz (Chairman), GrioAquino, Davide, Jr. andQuiason, JJ., concur.

Petition denied. Appealed decision affirmed.

Note.When the authenticity of the will is not beingquestioned, there is no necessity of presenting the threewitnesses required under Article 811 of the Civil Code(Rivera vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 182 SCRA 322).

o0o

356

Copyright2015CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.

Alvarado v. Gaviola

Documents

Transcript of Alvarado v. Gaviola