FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 74695 September 14, 1993

In the Matter of the Probate of the Last W!! an" #estament of the $e%ease" &r'"o
(!)ara"o, *+S(R (L,(R($-,petitioner,
vs.
.-N. R(M-N G. G(,I-L(, /R., Pres"n' /0st%e, .-N. M(. R-S(RI-
12+#2LI- L-S( an" .-N. L+-N-R IN+S L2*I(N-, (sso%ate /0st%es,
Interme"ate (ppe!!ate *o0rt, 3rst $)son 4*)! *ases5, an" &(6(NI M(.
RIN-,respondents.
Vicente R. Redor for petitioner.
Bayani Ma. Rino for and in his own behalf.

BELLOSILLO, J.:
Before us is an appeal from the Decision dated 11 April 1986
1
of the First Civil Cases
Division of the then Intermediate Appellate Court, now Court of Appeals, which affirmed
the rder dated !" #une 198$
7
of the %e&ional 'rial Court of (ta. Cru), *a&una,
admittin& to pro+ate the last will and testament
3
with codicil
4
of the late Bri&ido
Alvarado.
n , -ovem+er 19"", the "9./ear old Bri&ido Alvarado e0ecuted a notarial will entitled
12ulin& 2a+ilin1 wherein he disinherited an ille&itimate son 3petitioner4 and e0pressl/
revo5ed a previousl/ e0ecuted holo&raphic will at the time awaitin& pro+ate +efore
Branch 6 of the %e&ional 'rial Court of sta. Cru), *a&una.
As testified to by the three instrumental witnesses the notary !ubli" and by !ri#ate res!ondent
who were !resent at the e$e"ution the testator did not read the final draft of the will himself.
Instead !ri#ate res!ondent as the lawyer who drafted the ei%ht&!a%ed do"ument read the same
aloud in the !resen"e of the testator the three instrumental witnesses and the notary !ubli". The
latter four followed the readin% with their own res!e"ti#e "o!ies !re#iously furnished them.
Meanwhile Bri%ido's holo%ra!hi" will was subse(uently admitted to !robate on ) De"ember
*)++. On the ,)th day of the same month a "odi"il entitled -.asulatan n% /a%baba%o sa Ilan%
/a%!a!asiya na Nasasaad sa 0ulin% 0abilin na may /etsa Nobiembre 1 *)++ ni Bri%ido
Al#arado- was e$e"uted "han%in% some dis!ositions in the notarial will to %enerate "ash for the
testator's eye o!eration. Bri%ido was then sufferin% from %lau"oma. But the disinheritan"e and
re#o"atory "lauses were un"han%ed. As in the "ase of the notarial will the testator did not
!ersonally read the final draft of the "odi"il. Instead it was !ri#ate res!ondent who read it aloud in
his !resen"e and in the !resen"e of the three instrumental witnesses 2same as those of the
notarial will3 and the notary !ubli" who followed the readin% usin% their own "o!ies.
A !etition for the !robate of the notarial will and "odi"il was filed u!on the testator's death on 4
5anuary *)+) by !ri#ate res!ondent as e$e"utor with the 6ourt of First Instan"e now Re%ional
Trial 6ourt of Siniloan 7a%una.
5
7etitioner, in turn, filed an pposition on the followin&
&rounds8 that the will sou&ht to +e pro+ated was not e0ecuted and attested as re9uired +/
law: that the testator was insane or otherwise mentall/ incapacitated to ma5e a will at the
time of its e0ecution due to senilit/ and old a&e: that the will was e0ecuted under duress,
or influence of fear and threats: that it was procured +/ undue and improper pressure and
influence on the part of the +eneficiar/ who stands to &et the lion;s share of the testator;s
estate: and lastl/, that the si&nature of the testator was procured +/ fraud or tric5.
<hen the oppositor 3petitioner4 failed to su+stantiate the &rounds relied upon in the
pposition, a 7ro+ate rder was issued on !" #une 198$ from which an appeal was made
to respondent court. 'he main thrust of the appeal was that the deceased was +lind within
the meanin& of the law at the time his 12ulin& 2a+ilin1 and the codicil attached thereto
was e0ecuted: that since the readin& re9uired +/ Art. 8=8 of the Civil Code was
admittedl/ not complied with, pro+ate of the deceased;s last will and codicil should have
+een denied.
On ** A!ril *)89 the 6ourt of A!!eals rendered the de"ision under re#iew with the followin%
findin%s: that Bri%ido Al#arado was not blind at the time his last will and "odi"il were e$e"uted;
that assumin% his blindness the readin% re(uirement of Art. 8<8 was substantially "om!lied with
when both do"uments were read aloud to the testator with ea"h of the three instrumental
witnesses and the notary !ubli" followin% the readin% with their res!e"ti#e "o!ies of the
instruments. The a!!ellate "ourt then "on"luded that althou%h Art. 8<8 was not followed to the
letter there was substantial "om!lian"e sin"e its !ur!ose of ma=in% =nown to the testator the
"ontents of the drafted will was ser#ed.
The issues now before us "an be stated thus: >as Bri%ido Al#arado blind for !ur!ose of Art 8<8
at the time his -0ulin% 0abilin- and its "odi"il were e$e"uted? If so was the double&readin%
re(uirement of said arti"le "om!lied with?
Re%ardin% the first issue there is no dis!ute on the followin% fa"ts: Bri%ido Al#arado was not
totally blind at the time the will and "odi"il were e$e"uted. 0owe#er his #ision on both eyes was
only of -"ountin% fin%ers at three 243 feet- by reason of the %lau"oma whi"h he had been sufferin%
from for se#eral years and e#en !rior to his first "onsultation with an eye s!e"ialist on
*@ De"ember *)++.
The !oint of dis!ute is whether the fore%oin% "ir"umstan"es would (ualify Bri%ido as a -blind-
testator under Art. 8<8 whi"h reads:
Art. 8<8. If the testator is blind the will shall be read to him twi"e; on"e by one of the
subs"ribin% witnesses and a%ain by the notary !ubli" before whom the will is
a"=nowled%ed.
7etitioner contends that althou&h his father was not totall/ +lind when the will and codicil
were e0ecuted, he can +e so considered within the scope of the term as it is used in Art.
8=8. 'o support his stand, petitioner presented +efore the trial court a medical certificate
issued +/ Dr. (alvador %. (alceda, Director of the Institute of pthalmolo&/ 37hilippine
>/e %esearch Institute4,
6
the contents of which were interpreted in la/man;s terms +/ Dr.
%uperto %oasa, whose e0pertise was admitted +/ private respondent.
7
Dr. %oasa
e0plained that althou&h the testator could visuali)e fin&ers at three 3$4 feet, he could no
lon&er read either printed or handwritten matters as of 16 Decem+er 19"", the da/ of his
first consultation.
8
n the other hand, the Court of Appeals, contrar/ to the medical testimon/, held that the
testator could still read on the da/ the will and the codicil were e0ecuted +ut chose not to
do so +ecause of 1poor e/esi&ht.1
9
(ince the testator was still capa+le of readin& at that
time, the court a quo concluded that Art. 8=8 need not +e complied with.
<e a&ree with petitioner in this respect.
Re%ardless of res!ondent's staun"h "ontention that the testator was still "a!able of readin% at the
time his will and "odi"il were !re!ared the fa"t remains and this was testified to by his witnesses
that Bri%ido did not do so be"ause of his -!oor-
19
1defective,1
11
or 1+lurred1
17
vision ma5in&
it necessar/ for private respondent to do the actual readin& for him.
'he followin& pronouncement in Garcia vs. Vasquez
13
provides an insi&ht into the scope
of the term 1+lindness1 as used in Art. 8=8, to wit8
'he rationale +ehind the re9uirement of readin& the will to the testator ifhe is
blind or incapable of reading the will himself (as when he is illiterate), is to
ma5e the provisions thereof 5nown to him, so that he ma/ +e a+le to o+?ect if
the/ are not in accordance with his wishes . . .

Clear from the fore&oin& is that Art. 8=8 applies not onl/ to +lind testators +ut also to
those who, for one reason or another, are 1incapa+le of readin& the3ir4 will3s4.1 (ince
Bri&ido Alvarado was incapa+le of readin& the final drafts of his will and codicil on the
separate occasions of their e0ecution due to his 1poor,1 1defective,1 or 1+lurred1 vision,
there can +e no other course for us +ut to conclude that Bri&ido Alvarado comes within
the scope of the term 1+lind1 as it is used in Art. 8=8. @nless the contents were read to
him, he had no wa/ of ascertainin& whether or not the law/er who drafted the will and
codicil did so conforta+l/ with his instructions. 2ence, to consider his will as validl/
e0ecuted and entitled to pro+ate, it is essential that we ascertain whether Art. 8=8 had
+een complied with.
Arti"le 8<8 re(uires that in "ase of testators li=e Bri%ido Al#arado the will shall be read twi"e;
on"e by one of the instrumental witnesses and a%ain by the notary !ubli" before whom the will
was a"=nowled%ed. The !ur!ose is to ma=e =nown to the in"a!a"itated testator the "ontents of
the do"ument before si%nin% and to %i#e him an o!!ortunity to obAe"t if anythin% is "ontrary to his
instru"tions.
That Art. 8<8 was not followed stri"tly is beyond "a#il. Instead of the notary !ubli" and an
instrumental witness it was the lawyer 2!ri#ate res!ondent3 who drafted the ei%ht&!a%ed will and
the fi#e&!a%ed "odi"il who read the same aloud to the testator and read them only on"e not
twi"e as Art. 8<8 re(uires.
/ri#ate res!ondent howe#er insists that there was substantial "om!lian"e and that the sin%le
readin% suffi"es for !ur!oses of the law. On the other hand !etitioner maintains that the only #alid
"om!lian"e or "om!lian"e to the letter and sin"e it is admitted that neither the notary !ubli" nor
an instrumental witness read the "ontents of the will and "odi"il to Bri%ido !robate of the latter's
will and "odi"il should ha#e been disallowed.
>e sustain !ri#ate res!ondent's stand and ne"essarily the !etition must be denied.
This 6ourt has held in a number of o""asions that substantial "om!lian"e is a""e!table where the
!ur!ose of the law has been satisfied the reason bein% that the solemnities surroundin% the
e$e"ution of wills are intended to !rote"t the testator from all =inds of fraud and tri"=ery but are
ne#er intended to be so ri%id and infle$ible as to destroy the testamentary !ri#ile%e.
14
In the case at +ar, private respondent read the testator;s will and codicil aloud in the
presence of the testator, his three instrumental witnesses, and the notar/ pu+lic. 7rior and
su+se9uent thereto, the testator affirmed, upon +ein& as5ed, that the contents read
corresponded with his instructions. nl/ then did the si&nin& and ac5nowled&ement ta5e
place. 'here is no evidence, and petitioner does not so alle&e, that the contents of the will
and codicil were not sufficientl/ made 5nown and communicated to the testator. n the
contrar/, with respect to the 12ulin& 2a+ilin,1 the da/ of the e0ecution was not the first
time that Bri&ido had affirmed the truth and authenticit/ of the contents of the draft. 'he
uncontradicted testimon/ of Att/. %ino is that Bri&ido Alvarado alread/ ac5nowled&ed
that the will was drafted in accordance with his e0pressed wishes even prior to ,
-ovem+er 19"" when Att/. %ino went to the testator;s residence precisel/ for the purpose
of securin& his conformit/ to the draft.
15
Aoreover, it was not onl/ Att/. %ino who read the documents on
, -ovem+er and !9 Decem+er 19"". 'he notar/ pu+lic and the three instrumental
witnesses li5ewise read the will and codicil, al+eit silentl/. Afterwards, Att/. -onia de la
7ena 3the notar/ pu+lic4 and Dr. Crescente . >vidente 3one of the three instrumental
witnesses and the testator;s ph/sician4 as5ed the testator whether the contents of the
document were of his own free will. Bri&ido answered in the affirmative.
16
<ith four
persons followin& the readin& word for word with their own copies, it can +e safel/
concluded that the testator was reasona+l/ assured that what was read to him 3those
which he affirmed were in accordance with his instructions4, were the terms actuall/
appearin& on the t/pewritten documents. 'his is especiall/ true when we consider the fact
that the three instrumental witnesses were persons 5nown to the testator, one +ein& his
ph/sician 3Dr. >vidente4 and another 37otenciano C. %anieses4 +ein& 5nown to him since
childhood.
'he spirit +ehind the law was served thou&h the letter was not. Althou&h there should +e
strict compliance with the su+stantial re9uirements of the law in order to insure the
authenticit/ of the will, the formal imperfections should +e +rushed aside when the/ do
not affect its purpose and which, when ta5en into account, ma/ onl/ defeat the testator;s
will.
17
As a final word to convince petitioner of the propriet/ of the trial court;s 7ro+ate rder
and its affirmance +/ the Court of Appeals, we 9uote the followin& pronouncement in
Abangan v. Abangan,
18
to wit8
'he o+?ect of the solemnities surroundin& the e0ecution of wills is to close the
door a&ainst +ad faith and fraud, to avoid the su+stitution of wills and testaments
and to &uarant/ their truth and authenticit/. 'herefore the laws on the su+?ect
should +e interpreted in such a wa/ as to attain these primordial ends. But, on the
other hand, also one must not lose si&ht of the fact that it is not the object of the
law to restrain and curtail the exercise of the right to make a will . o when an
interpretation alread! given assures such ends" an! other interpretation
whatsoever" that adds nothing but demands more requisites entirel! unnecessar!"
useless and frustrative of the testator#s will" must be disregarded 3emphasis
supplied4.

Bri&ido Alvarado had e0pressed his last wishes in clear and unmista5a+le terms in his
12ulin& 2a+ilin1 and the codicil attached thereto. <e are unwillin& to cast these aside fro
the mere reason that a le&al re9uirement intended for his protection was not followed
strictl/ when such compliance had +een rendered unnecessar/ +/ the fact that the purpose
of the law, i.e., to ma5e 5nown to the incapacitated testator the contents of the draft of his
will, had alread/ +een accomplished. 'o reiterate, su+stantial compliance suffices where
the purpose has +een served.
>0BRBFORB the !etition is DBNIBD and the assailed De"ision of res!ondent 6ourt of A!!eals
dated ** A!ril *)89 is AFFIRMBD. 6onsiderin% the len%th of time that this "ase has remained
!endin% this de"ision is immediately e$e"utory. 6osts a%ainst !etitioner.
SO ORDBRBD.