ARTICLE 807.

GARCIA V. VASQUEZ

FACTS: Gliceria Avelino del Rosario died unmarried in the City of Manila on 2
September 1965, leaving no descendents, ascendants, brother or sister. At the time of
her death, she was said to be 90 years old more or less. On 17 September 1965, Consuelo
S. Gonzales Vda. de Precilla, a niece of the deceased, petitioned for probate of the
alleged last will and testament of Gliceria. The petition was opposed separately by
several groups of alleged heirs claiming to be relatives of Doña Gliceria within the fifth
civil degree alleging that the formalities required by law for such execution have not
been complied with. The Court issued an order admitting to probate the 1960 will of
Gliceria. The oppositors-appellants in the present case, however, challenging the
correctness of the probate court’s ruling, maintain that on 29 December 1960 the
eyesight of Gliceria del Rosario was so poor and defective that she could not have read
the provisions of the will.

ISSUE: Is the will valid?

HELD: No. The foregoing testimony of the ophthalmologist who treated the deceased
and, therefore, has first hand knowledge of the actual condition of her eyesight from
August, 1960 up to 1963, fully establish the fact that notwithstanding the operation and
removal of the cataract in her left eye and her being fitted with aphakic lens (used by
cataract patients), her vision remained mainly for viewing distant objects and not for
reading print. Thus, the conclusion is inescapable that with the condition of her eyesight
in August, 1960, and there is no evidence that it had improved by 29 December 1960,
Gliceria del Rosario was incapable f reading, and could not have read the provisions of
the will supposedly signed by her on 29 December 1960. It is worth noting that the
instrumental witnesses stated that she read the instrument "silently".

Upon its face, the testamentary provisions, the attestation clause and acknowledgment
were crammed together into a single sheet of paper, to much so that the words had to
be written very close on the top, bottom and two sides of the paper, leaving no margin
whatsoever. Further, typographical errors like "HULINH" for "HULING" (last),
"Alfonsa" ;or "Alfonso", "MERCRDRS" for MERCEDES", "instrumental" for
"Instrumental", and "acknowledged" for "acknowledge’’, remained uncorrected, thereby
indicating that execution thereof must have been characterized by haste. It is difficult to
understand that so important a document containing the final disposition of one’s
worldly possessions should be embodied in an informal and untidily written
instrument; or that the glaring spelling errors should have escaped her notice if she had
actually retained the ability to read the purported will and had done so. The record is
thus convincing that the supposed testatrix could not have physically read or
understood the alleged testament, and that its admission to probate was erroneous and
should be reversed.
The due execution of her will would have required observance of the provisions of
Article 808 of the Civil Code. However, there is nothing in the records to show that the
above requisites have been complied with.