ALVARADO VS. GAVIOLA, JR., ET.AL.

September 14, 1993

Facts:
1. Brigido Alvarado executed a will disinheriting petitioner Cesar Alvarado, an illegitimate son.

2. Later on, a codicil was executed, and by that time, the testator was already suffering from
glaucoma. But the disinheritance and revocatory clauses were unchanged.

3. The testator did not read the final draft of the will himself. Instead, private respondent, as the
lawyer who drafted the 8-paged document, read the same aloud in the presence of the
testator, the 3 instrumental witnesses and the notary public. The witnesses and the notary
public followed the reading with their own respective copies previously furnished them.

Issue: 1:
Whether or not Brigido was blind for the purpose of Art. 808.1

Yes. 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 that Article 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.

Issue 2:
If so, was the double-reading requirement was complied with.

There was substantial compliance with the law. Substantial compliance is acceptable where the
purpose of the law has been satisfied, the 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
so rigid and inflexible as to destroy the testamentary privilege.

Supreme Court ruled that 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 type written documents.

In the case at bar, private respondent read the testator's will and codicil aloud in the
presence of the testator, his three instrumental witnesses, and the notary public. Prior and

1
Art. 808. If the testator is blind, the will shall be read to him twice; once, by one of the subscribing
witnesses, and again, by the notary public before whom the will is acknowledged.
subsequent thereto, the testator affirmed, upon being asked, that the contents read
corresponded with his instructions. Only then did the signing and acknowledgement take place.

Rodelas v. Aranza, G.R. No. L-58509, December 7, 1982

Facts:
1. The appellant filed a petition for the probate of the holographic will of Ricardo Bonilla
in 1977. The petition was opposed by the appellees on the ground that the deceased
did not leave any will, holographic or otherwise.

2. The lower court dismissed the petition for probate and held that since the original
will was lost, a photostatic copy cannot stand in the place of the original.

Issue: Whether or not a holographic will can be proved by means of a photocopy

Ruling Yes. The court ruled that Even a mimeographed or carbon copy; or by other similar
means, if any, whereby the authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased may be exhibited and
tested before the probate court," Evidently, the photostatic or xerox copy of the lost or destroyed
holographic will may be admitted because then the authenticity of the handwriting of the
deceased can be determined by the probate court as provided by Art. 811 of the Civil Code.

In the probate of a holographic will, (if uncontested,) it shall be necessary that at least
one witness who knows the handwriting and signature of the testator explicitly declare that the
will and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator.
If the will is contested, at least three of such witnesses shall be required. (Art. 811, CC)

Cruz v. Villasor, G.R. L-32213, November 26, 1973

Facts:

1. The CFI of Cebu allowed the probate of the last will and testament of the
late Valenti Cruz. However, the petitioner opposed the allowance of the will alleging
that it was executed through fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, and undue influence.
2. One of the witnesses was also the notary before whom the will was
acknowledged. Despite the objection, the lower court admitted the will to probate on
the ground that there is substantial compliance with the legal requirements of having
at least 3 witnesses even if the notary public was one of them.
 Issue: Whether the will is valid pursuant to Art. 806 of the CC, that is, every will must be
acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses (at least 3 credible
witnesses)

Ruling: No. The will is not valid. The notary public cannot be considered as the third
instrumental witness since he cannot acknowledge before himself his having signed the said will.
An acknowledging officer cannot serve as witness at the same time.

To acknowledge before means to avow, or to own as genuine, to assent, admit, and

'before' means in front of or preceding in space or ahead of. The notary cannot split his
personality into two so that one will appear before the other to acknowledge his participation int
he making of the will. To permit such situation would be absurd.

Finally, the function of a notary among others is to guard against any illegal or immoral
arrangements, a function defeated if he were to be one of the attesting or instrumental
witnesses. He would be interested in sustaining the validity of the will as it directly involves
himself and the validity of his own act. he would be in an inconsistent position, thwarting the
very purpose of the acknowledgment, which is to minimize fraud.