- CASE DIGEST -
Alvarado v.
Gaviola
G.R. No. 74695,
September 14, 1993
FACTS: Brigido Alvarado executed a notarial will entitled, “Huling
Habilin” wherein he disinherited an illegitimate son, Cesar Alvarado, and
expressly revoked a previously executed a holographic will at the time awaiting
probate before RTC. As testified to by the three instrumental witnesses, the
notary public and Cesar, the testator did not read the final draft of the will,
instead, Atty. Rino, as the lawyer who drafted the document read the same aloud
in the presence of the testator, the three instrumental witnesses and the
notary public.
While the testator’s will was admitted to probate, a codicil was
subsequently executed changing some dispositions in the notarial will to
generate cash for the testator’s eye operation because he was then suffering
from glaucoma. But the disinheritance and the revocatory clauses remained and
as in the case of the notarial will, the testator did not personally read the
final draft of the codicil. Instead, it was Atty. Rino who read it alound in
his presence and in the presence of the three instrumental witnesses and of the
notary public.
Upon the testator’s death, Atty Rino as executor filed a petition for
probate of the notarial will which was in turn opposed by Cesar alleging that
the will sought to be probated was not executed and attested as required by
law, specifically on the two readings required by Art. 808.
ISSUE: Whether or not Brigido Alvarado was blind within the meaning of Article 808 at the time his “Huling Habilin” and codicil were executed. If so, whether or not the requirement of double-reading in said Article was complied with.
RULING: Yes.
Art. 808 applies not only to blind testators but also to those who, for
one reason or another, are “incapable of reading their wills”. Since the
deceased was incapable of reading the final drafts of his will and codicil on
the separate occasions of their execution due to his poor, defective, or blurred
vision, there can be no other course but to conclude that he comes within the
scope of the term “blind” as used in Art. 808. Unless the contents were read to
him, he had no way of ascertaining whether or not the lawyer who drafted the
will and codicil did so conformably with his instruction. Hence, to consider
his will as validly executed and entitled to probate, it is essential to
ascertain whether or not Art. 808 had been complied with.
There is no evidence and the oppositor does not allege that the contents
of the will and codicil were not sufficiently made known 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 the testator had affirmed the truth
and authenticity of the contents of the draft. Moreover, with four persons
following the reading word for 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. This is especially
true considering the fact that the three instrumental witnesses were persons
known to the testator.
In this case, there was substantial compliance since purpose of the law
has been satisfied. The spirit behind that law was served though the letter was
not. Although there should be strict compliance with the substantial
requirements of the law in order to insure authenticity of the will, the formal
imperfection should be brushed aside when they do not affect its purpose and
which, when taken into account may only defeat the testator’s will. Substantial
compliance is acceptable where the purpose of the law has been satisfied, the
reason being that the solemnities surrounding the execution of will are
intended to protect the testator from all kinds of fraud and trickery but are
never intended to be as rigid and inflexible as to destroy the testamentary
privilege.
No comments:
Post a Comment