LAW 311: SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS RULE 76

Republic of the Philippines satisfied.—This Court has held in a number of occasions that substantial
SUPREME COURT compliance is acceptable where the purpose of the law has been satisfied, the
Manila reason being 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
FIRST DIVISION  so rigid and inflexible as to destroy the testamentary privilege.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Although there should be strict compliance with
the substantial requirements of the law in order to insure the authenticity of
G.R. No. 74695 September 14, 1993
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
In the Matter of the Probate of the Last Will and Testament of the Deceased testator’s will.—The spirit behind the law was served though the letter was not.
Brigido Alvarado, CESAR ALVARADO, petitioner, Although there should be strict compliance with the substantial requirements of the
vs. law in order to insure the authenticity of the will, the formal imperfections should be
HON. RAMON G. GAVIOLA, JR., Presiding Justice, HON. MA. ROSARIO brushed aside when they do not affect its purpose and which, when taken into
QUETULIO LOSA and HON. LEONOR INES LUCIANO, Associate Justices, account, may only defeat the testator’s will.
Intermediate Appellate Court, First Division (Civil Cases), and BAYANI MA.
RINO, respondents. BELLOSILLO, J.:

Vicente R. Redor for petitioner. Before us is an appeal from the Decision dated 11 April 1986 1 of the First Civil
Bayani Ma. Rino for and in his own behalf. Cases Division of the then Intermediate Appellate Court, now Court of Appeals,
which affirmed the Order dated 27 June 1983 2 of the Regional Trial Court of Sta.
Civil Law; Wills; Article 808 applies not only to blind testators but also, to Cruz, Laguna, admitting to probate the last will and testament 3 with codicil4 of the
those who, for one reason or another, are “incapable of reading their late Brigido Alvarado.
wills.”—Clear from the foregoing is that Art. 808 applies not only to blind testators
but also to those who, for one reason or another, are “incapable of reading the(ir) On 5 November 1977, the 79-year old Brigido Alvarado executed a notarial will
will(s).” Since Brigido Alvarado was incapable of reading the final drafts of his will entitled "Huling Habilin" wherein he disinherited an illegitimate son (petitioner) and
and codicil on the separate occasions of their execution due to his “poor,” expressly revoked a previously executed holographic will at the time awaiting
“defective,” or “blurred” vision, there can be no other course for us but to conclude probate before Branch 4 of the Regional Trial Court of sta. Cruz, Laguna.
that Brigido Alvarado 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
As testified to by the three instrumental witnesses, the notary public and by private
or not the lawyer who drafted the will and codicil did so conformably with his
respondent who were present at the execution, the testator did not read the final
instructions.
draft of the will himself. Instead, private respondent, as the lawyer who drafted the
eight-paged document, read the same aloud in the presence of the testator, the
Same; Same; Same; The purpose of reading the will twice is to make known three instrumental witnesses and the notary public. The latter four followed the
to the incapacitated testator the contents of the document before signing reading with their own respective copies previously furnished them.
and to give him an opportunity to object if anything is contrary to his
instructions.—Article 808 requires that in case of testators like Brigido Alvarado,
Meanwhile, Brigido's holographic will was subsequently admitted to probate on 9
the will shall be read twice; once, by one of the instrumental witnesses and, again,
December 1977. On the 29th day of the same month, a codicil entitled "Kasulatan
by the notary public before whom the will was acknowledged. The purpose is to
ng Pagbabago sa Ilang Pagpapasiya na Nasasaad sa Huling Habilin na may Petsa
make known to the incapacitated testator the contents of the document before
Nobiembre 5, 1977 ni Brigido Alvarado" was executed changing some dispositions
signing and to give him an opportunity to object if anything is contrary to his
in the notarial will to generate cash for the testator's eye operation. Brigido was
instructions.
then suffering from glaucoma. But the disinheritance and revocatory clauses were
unchanged. As in the case of the notarial will, the testator did not personally read
Same; Same; Same; Same; Court held in a number of occasions that the final draft of the codicil. Instead, it was private respondent who read it aloud in
substantial compliance is acceptable where the purpose of the law has been his presence and in the presence of the three instrumental witnesses (same as

ISMAEL CATALINO A. MAESTRE JR. Page 1 of 4

LAW 311: SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS RULE 76
those of the notarial will) and the notary public who followed the reading using their The point of dispute is whether the foregoing circumstances would qualify Brigido
own copies. as a "blind" testator under Art. 808 which reads:

A petition for the probate of the notarial will and codicil was filed upon the testator's Art. 808. If the testator is blind, the will shall be read to him twice;
death on 3 January 1979 by private respondent as executor with the Court of First once, by one of the subscribing witnesses, and again, by the
Instance, now Regional Trial Court, of Siniloan, Laguna. 5 Petitioner, in turn, filed an notary public before whom the will is acknowledged.
Opposition on the following grounds: that the will sought to be probated was not
executed and attested as required by law; that the testator was insane or Petitioner contends that although his father was not totally blind when the will and
otherwise mentally incapacitated to make a will at the time of its execution due to codicil were executed, he can be so considered within the scope of the term as it is
senility and old age; that the will was executed under duress, or influence of fear used in Art. 808. To support his stand, petitioner presented before the trial court a
and threats; that it was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence on medical certificate issued by Dr. Salvador R. Salceda, Director of the Institute of
the part of the beneficiary who stands to get the lion's share of the testator's Opthalmology (Philippine Eye Research Institute), 6 the contents of which were
estate; and lastly, that the signature of the testator was procured by fraud or trick. interpreted in layman's terms by Dr. Ruperto Roasa, whose expertise was
admitted by private respondent.7 Dr. Roasa explained that although the testator
When the oppositor (petitioner) failed to substantiate the grounds relied upon in the could visualize fingers at three (3) feet, he could no longer read either printed or
Opposition, a Probate Order was issued on 27 June 1983 from which an appeal handwritten matters as of 14 December 1977, the day of his first consultation. 8
was made to respondent court. The main thrust of the appeal was that the
deceased was blind within the meaning of the law at the time his "Huling Habilin" On the other hand, the Court of Appeals, contrary to the medical testimony, held
and the codicil attached thereto was executed; that since the reading required by that the testator could still read on the day the will and the codicil were executed
Art. 808 of the Civil Code was admittedly not complied with, probate of the but chose not to do so because of "poor eyesight." 9 Since the testator was still
deceased's last will and codicil should have been denied. capable of reading at that time, the court a quo concluded that Art. 808 need not
be complied with.
On 11 April 1986, the Court of Appeals rendered the decision under review with
the following findings: that Brigido Alvarado was not blind at the time his last will We agree with petitioner in this respect.
and codicil were executed; that assuming his blindness, the reading requirement of
Art. 808 was substantially complied with when both documents were read aloud to Regardless of respondent's staunch contention that the testator was still capable
the testator with each of the three instrumental witnesses and the notary public of reading at the time his will and codicil were prepared, the fact remains and this
following the reading with their respective copies of the instruments. The appellate was testified to by his witnesses, that Brigido did not do so because of his
court then concluded that although Art. 808 was not followed to the letter, there "poor," 10 "defective," 11 or "blurred"12 vision making it necessary for private
was substantial compliance since its purpose of making known to the testator the respondent to do the actual reading for him.
contents of the drafted will was served.
The following pronouncement in Garcia vs. Vasquez 13 provides an insight into the
The issues now before us can be stated thus: Was Brigido Alvarado blind for scope of the term "blindness" as used in Art. 808, to wit:
purpose of Art, 808 at the time his "Huling Habilin" and its codicil were executed? If
so, was the double-reading requirement of said article complied with?
The rationale behind the requirement of reading the will to the
testator if  he is blind or incapable of reading the will himself (as
Regarding the first issue, there is no dispute on the following facts: Brigido when he is illiterate), is to make the provisions thereof known to
Alvarado was not totally blind at the time the will and codicil were executed. him, so that he may be able to object if they are not in accordance
However, his vision on both eyes was only of "counting fingers at three (3) feet" by with his wishes . . .
reason of the glaucoma which he had been suffering from for several years and
even prior to his first consultation with an eye specialist on
14 December 1977. Clear from the foregoing is that Art. 808 applies not only to blind testators but also
to those who, for one reason or another, are "incapable of reading the(ir) will(s)."
Since Brigido Alvarado was incapable of reading the final drafts of his will and

ISMAEL CATALINO A. MAESTRE JR. Page 2 of 4

LAW 311: SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS RULE 76
codicil on the separate occasions of their execution due to his "poor," "defective," of Atty. Rino is that Brigido Alvarado already acknowledged that the will was
or "blurred" vision, there can be no other course for us but to conclude that Brigido drafted in accordance with his expressed wishes even prior to 5 November 1977
Alvarado comes within the scope of the term "blind" as it is used in Art. 808. when Atty. Rino went to the testator's residence precisely for the purpose of
Unless the contents were read to him, he had no way of ascertaining whether or securing his conformity to the draft. 15
not the lawyer who drafted the will and codicil did so confortably with his
instructions. Hence, to consider his will as validly executed and entitled to probate, Moreover, it was not only Atty. Rino who read the documents on
it is essential that we ascertain whether Art. 808 had been complied with. 5 November and 29 December 1977. The notary public and the three instrumental
witnesses likewise read the will and codicil, albeit silently. Afterwards, Atty. Nonia
Article 808 requires that in case of testators like Brigido Alvarado, the will shall be de la Pena (the notary public) and Dr. Crescente O. Evidente (one of the three
read twice; once, by one of the instrumental witnesses and, again, by the notary instrumental witnesses and the testator's physician) asked the testator whether the
public before whom the will was acknowledged. The purpose is to make known to contents of the document were of his own free will. Brigido answered in the
the incapacitated testator the contents of the document before signing and to give affirmative. 16 With four persons following the reading word for word with their own
him an opportunity to object if anything is contrary to his instructions. 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
That Art. 808 was not followed strictly is beyond cavil. Instead of the notary public instructions), were the terms actually appearing on the typewritten documents.
and an instrumental witness, it was the lawyer (private respondent) who drafted This is especially true when we consider the fact that the three instrumental
the eight-paged will and the five-paged codicil who read the same aloud to the witnesses were persons known to the testator, one being his physician (Dr.
testator, and read them only once, not twice as Art. 808 requires. Evidente) and another (Potenciano C. Ranieses) being known to him since
childhood.
Private respondent however insists that there was substantial compliance and that
the single reading suffices for purposes of the law. On the other hand, petitioner The spirit behind the law was served though the letter was not. Although there
maintains that the only valid compliance or compliance to the letter and since it is should be strict compliance with the substantial requirements of the law in order to
admitted that neither the notary public nor an instrumental witness read the insure the authenticity of the will, the formal imperfections should be brushed aside
contents of the will and codicil to Brigido, probate of the latter's will and codicil when they do not affect its purpose and which, when taken into account, may only
should have been disallowed. defeat the testator's will. 17

We sustain private respondent's stand and necessarily, the petition must be As a final word to convince petitioner of the propriety of the trial court's Probate
denied. Order and its affirmance by the Court of Appeals, we quote the following
pronouncement in Abangan v.  Abangan, 18 to wit:
This Court has held in a number of occasions that substantial compliance is
acceptable where the purpose of the law has been satisfied, the reason being that The object of the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is
the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills are intended to protect the to close the door against bad faith and fraud, to avoid the
testator from all kinds of fraud and trickery but are never intended to be so rigid substitution of wills and testaments and to guaranty their truth and
and inflexible as to destroy the testamentary privilege. 14 authenticity. Therefore the laws on the subject should be
interpreted 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 it is
In the case at bar, private respondent read the testator's will and codicil aloud in
not the object of the law to restrain and curtail the exercise of the
the presence of the testator, his three instrumental witnesses, and the notary
right to make a will.  So when an interpretation already given
public. Prior and subsequent thereto, the testator affirmed, upon being asked, that
assures such ends, any other interpretation whatsoever, that adds
the contents read corresponded with his instructions. Only then did the signing and
nothing but demands more requisites entirely unnecessary,
acknowledgement take place. There is no evidence, and petitioner does not so
useless and frustrative of the testator's will, must be
allege, that the contents of the will and codicil were not sufficiently made known
disregarded (emphasis supplied).
and communicated to the testator. On the contrary, with respect to the "Huling
Habilin," the day of the execution was not the first time that Brigido had affirmed
the truth and authenticity of the contents of the draft. The uncontradicted testimony

ISMAEL CATALINO A. MAESTRE JR. Page 3 of 4

LAW 311: SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS RULE 76
Brigido Alvarado had expressed his last wishes in clear and unmistakable terms in
his "Huling Habilin" and the codicil attached thereto. We are unwilling to cast these
aside fro the mere reason that a legal requirement intended for his protection was
not followed strictly when such compliance had been rendered unnecessary by the
fact that the purpose of the law, i.e., to make known to the incapacitated testator
the contents of the draft of his will, had already been accomplished. To reiterate,
substantial compliance suffices where the purpose has been served.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision of respondent

Court of Appeals dated 11 April 1986 is AFFIRMED. Considering the length of time
that this case has remained pending, this decision is immediately executory. Costs
against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, Griño-Aquino, Davide, Jr. and Quiason, JJ., concur.

ISMAEL CATALINO A. MAESTRE JR. Page 4 of 4