Ruling:Brigido was not totally blind at the time the will and codicil were executed. His vision on both

eyes was only of counting finger at “3 feet”. He could no longer read either printed or handwritten

matters as of December 14, 1977 or had poor eyesight.The Supreme Court declared that the rationale behind Article 808 is the provisions thereof known to him, so that he may able to object if they are not in accordance with his wishes. Clear thatArticle 808 applies not only to blind testators but also to those who are incapable of reading the will.This includes the illiterate. Moreover, since Brigido was incapable of reading the final draft he comes to

the scope of the term “blind”.

On the second issue, Article 808 was not strictly complied. Instead by the notary public and theinstrumental witnesses, it was the respondent lawyer who read once not twice followed by the notarypublic and witnesses, albeit silently.Supreme Court ruled that with four persons following the reading word for word with their owncopies, it can be safely concluded that the testator was reasonably assured that what was read to himwere the terms actually appearing on the type written documents

Also, Art. 809 does not apply to the present case because the attestation clause totally omits the fact that the attesting witnesses signed each and every page of the will in thepresence of the testator and of each other. The defect in this case is not only with respectto the form or the language of the attestation clause. The defects must be remedied by intrinsic evidence supplied by the will itself which is clearly lacking in this case.Therefore, the probate of the will is set aside and the case for the intestate proceedingsshall be revived. Article 809 cannot be used to cure the defects of the will when it does not pertain to theform or language of the will. This is because there is not substantial compliance with Article 805.