Gaviola Digest

Alvarado v.
Gaviola
226 SCRA 347
FACTS:
On 5 November 1977, 79-year old Brigido Alvarado executed a notarial will entitled
Huling Habilin wherein he disinherited an illegitimate son, petitioner Cesar Alvarado,
and expressly revoked a previously executed holographic will at the time awaiting
probate before the RTC of Laguna.
According to Bayani Ma. Rino, private respondent, he was present when the said
notarial will was executed, together with three instrumental witnesses and the notary
public, where the testator did not read the will himself, suffering as he did
from glaucoma.
Rino, a lawyer, drafted the eight-page document and read the same aloud before the
testator, the three instrumental witnesses and the notary public, the latter four following
the reading with their own respective copies previously furnished them.
Thereafter, a codicil entitled Kasulatan ng Pagbabago ng Ilang Pagpapasiya na
Nasasaad sa Huling Habilin na May Petsa Nobiembre 5, 1977 ni Brigido Alvarado was
executed changing some dispositions in the notarial will to generate cash for the
testators eye operation.
Said codicil was likewise not read by Brigido Alvarado and was read in the same manner
as with the previously executed will.
When the notarial will was submitted to the court for probate, Cesar Alvarado filed his
opposition as he said that the will was not executed and attested as required by law; that
the testator was insane or mentally incapacitated due to senility and old age; that the
will was executed under duress, or influence of fear or threats; that it was procured by
undue pressure and influence on the part of the beneficiary; and that the signature of
the testator was procured by fraud or trick.
ISSUE:
W/N notarial will of Brigido Alvarado should be admitted to probate despite allegations
of defects in the execution and attestation thereof as testator was allegedly blind at the
time of execution and the double-reading requirement under Art. 808 of the NCC was
not complied with.
HELD:
YES. The spirit behind the law was served though the letter was not. Although there
should be strict compliance with the substantial requirements of law in order
to insure the authenticity of 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 testators will.
Cesar Alvardo was correct in asserting that his father was not totally blind (of counting
fingers at 3 feet) when the will and codicil were executed, but he can be so considered
for purposes of Art. 808.
That Art. 808 was not followed strictly is beyond cavil.
However, in the case at bar, there was substantial compliance where the purpose of the
law has been satisfied: that of making the provisions known to the testator who is blind
or incapable of reading the will himself (as when he is illiterate) and enabling him to
object if they do not accord with his wishes.
Rino read the testators will and codicil aloud in the presence of the testator, his three
instrumental witnesses, and the notary public.
Prior and subsequent thereto, the testator affirmed, upon being asked, that the contents
read corresponded with his instructions.
Only then did the signing and acknowledgment take place.
There is no evidence that the contents of the will and the codicil were not sufficiently
made known and communicated to the testator.
With four persons, mostly known to the testator, 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.
The rationale behind the requirement of reading the will to the testator if he is blind
or incapable of reading the will to himself (as when he is illiterate), is to make the
provisions thereof known to him, so that he may be able to object if they are not in
accordance with his wishes.
Although there should be strict compliance with the substantial requirements of law in
order to insure the authenticity of 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 testators will.

Gaviola Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gaviola Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gaviola Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alvarado v.

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.