Garcia v.

Vasquez
(Blind testator)

Facts: This is a petition for appeal from the CFI of Manila admitting to probate the will of
Gliceria Avelino del Rosario (“Gliceria”) executed in 1960. Likewise, this is also an appeal to
remove the current administrator, Consuelo Gonzales-Precilla( “Consuelo”) as special
administratrix of the estate on the ground of Consuelo possesses interest adverse to the estate
and to order the RD of Manila to annotate on the registered lands a notice of Lis Pendens.
When Gliceria died she had no descendants, ascendants, bros or sisses and 90 yrs old. After
which, her niece, Consuelo petitioned the court to be the administratrix of the properties. The
court approved this because Consuelo has been was already managing the properties of the
deceased during her lifetime. What the respondents allege is that in the last years of the
deceased, Consuelo sought the transfer of certain parcels of land valued at 300k for a sale price
of 30k to her husband Alfonso through fraud and intimidation. In addition, the oppositors
presented evidence that Consuelo asked the court to issue new Certificates of Titles to certain
parcels of land for the purpose of preparing the inventory to be used in the probate. Also shown
was that NEW TCTs were issued by the RD for certain lands of the deceased after Consuelo
asked for the old TCTs.
At the end of the probate proceedings, the court ruled that Counsuelo should be made the
administrator, and that the will was duly executed because of these reasons: NO EVIDENCE
HAS BEEN PRESENTED to establish that the deceased was not of sound mind, that eventough
the allegations state that the deceased prepared another will in 1956 (12pages), the latter is not
prevented from executing another will in 1960 (1page), and that inconsistencies in the
testimonies of the witnesses prove their truthfulness.

Issue: Was the will in 1960 (1 page) duly/properly executed?

Ruling: NO. Provision of Article 808 mandatory. 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 Therefore, For all intents and purposes of the rules on
probate, the testatrix was like a blind testator, and the due execution of her will would have
required observance of Article 808. The rationale behind the requirement of reading the will to
the testator if he is blind or incapable of reading the will 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. Likewise, the 1970 will was done in Tagalog which the deceased is
not well versed but in Spanish. This creates doubt as to the due execution of the will and as well
as the typographical errors contain therein which show the haste in preparing the 1 page will as
compared to the 12 page will created in 1956 written in Spanish. ALSO, as to the blindness,
there was proof given by the testimony of the doctor that the deceased could not read at near
distances because of cataracts. (Testatrix’s vision was mainly for viewing distant objects and not
for reading print.) Since there is no proof that it was read to the deceased twice, the will was
NOT duly executed.