Case Summary (G.R. No. 74695)
Execution and Form of the Will and Codicil
Alvarado did not personally read the eight‐page notarial will or the five‐page codicil due to “poor,” “defective,” or “blurred” vision. Instead, Atty. Rino read each document once aloud in the presence of the testator, three instrumental witnesses, and the notary public. Each of these four persons silently followed along with their own copies. The documents were thereafter signed and acknowledged.
Opposition, Grounds, and Lower Court Findings
Petitioner filed an opposition alleging non-compliance with testamentary formalities, mental incapacity, undue influence, duress, and fraud. The trial court found these grounds unsubstantiated and admitted the will and codicil to probate. On appeal, petitioner argued that Alvarado’s compromised vision rendered him “blind” under Art. 808 and that the mandatory double reading by a subscribing witness and the notary public was not observed.
Definition of “Blind” under Article 808
Medical testimony established that Alvarado could count fingers at three feet but could no longer read printed or handwritten material. The Court rejected the appellate court’s finding that he voluntarily declined to read. Citing Garcia v. Vasquez, the Supreme Court held that Art. 808’s “blindness” extends to any testator incapable of reading the will personally. Alvarado’s visual incapacity thus triggered the double‐reading requirement.
Substantial Compliance with Reading Requirement
Although Art. 808 prescribes two readings—one by a subscribing witness and one by the notary—the testator’s lawyer alone read the texts aloud. However, the notary public and the three instrumental witnesses had each silently read and confirmed the documents before Alvarado. He affirmed that the drafts conformed to his instructions both before and after the interlocutory readings. No evidence suggested misrepresentation or fraud.
Rationale for Upholding Probate under Substantial Compliance
The Court emphasized that formal requirements protect testators from f
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 74695)
Procedural History
- Petition for probate of the last will and testament with codicil filed on 3 January 1979 by private respondent (Atty. Bayani M. Rino) as executor before the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Siniloan, Laguna
- Opposition filed by petitioner (illegitimate son, Cesar Alvarado) on grounds of improper execution, mental incapacity, duress, undue influence, and fraud
- Regional Trial Court of Sta. Cruz, Laguna issued a Probate Order on 27 June 1983 admitting the will and codicil to probate
- Appeal taken to the First Civil Cases Division of the Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals)
- Court of Appeals rendered its Decision on 11 April 1986 affirming the trial court’s Order
- Petition for review filed before the Supreme Court of the Philippines
Facts of the Case
- On 5 November 1977, 79-year-old Brigido Alvarado executed a notarial will titled “Huling Habilin,” disinheriting his illegitimate son and expressly revoking a previously executed holographic will then awaiting probate
- The eight-page notarial will was drafted by private respondent, read aloud by him (not by a subscribing witness or the notary) in the presence of the testator, three instrumental witnesses, and the notary public, each having a copy to follow silently
- Holographic will was admitted to probate on 9 December 1977
- On 29 December 1977, testator executed a five-page codicil to provide cash for his glaucoma-related eye operation; same reading procedure as the notarial will, again read aloud once by the drafting lawyer with witnesses and notary following silently
- Testator suffered from glaucoma; his vision limited to “counting fingers at three (3) feet” and he could not read printed or handwritten matter
- Testator died on 3 January 19