FACTS:

Brigido Alvarado executed a notarial will entitled "Huling Habilin" disinheriting his illegitimate son and revoking a previous holographic will. The notarial will was read aloud by the lawyer who drafted it in the presence of the testator, three witnesses, and a notary public. Later, a codicil was executed, changing some dispositions in the will. The codicil was also read aloud in the presence of the testator, witnesses, and notary public. After Brigido Alvarado's death, a petition for the probate of the will and codicil was filed by the lawyer as executor. The son opposed and argued that the will was not properly executed and that the testator was mentally incapacitated at the time. The opposing son failed to substantiate his grounds, and the probate order was issued. The son appealed, arguing that the testator was blind at the time the will and codicil were executed, and the reading requirement of Art. 808 Civil Code was not complied with. The Court of Appeals held that the testator was not blind and that there was substantial compliance with the reading requirement. The issues raised were whether the testator was blind for purposes of Art. 808 and whether the double-reading requirement was complied with. The son argued that the testator qualifies as "blind" under Art. 808 based on medical evidence, while the Court of Appeals held that the testator could still read and thus Art. 808 need not be complied with. The Supreme Court agreed with the son's contention.

ISSUES:

1. Was Brigido Alvarado blind for purposes of Art. 808 at the time his "Huling Habilin" and its codicil were executed?

2. If so, was the double-reading requirement of said article complied with?

RULING:

1. The Court held that Brigido Alvarado can be considered blind within the scope of Art. 808. Even though he was not totally blind when the will and codicil were executed, his visual acuity was only of "counting fingers at three (3) feet" due to the glaucoma he had been suffering from. The Court disagreed with the Court of Appeals' conclusion that Art. 808 need not be complied with because the testator was still capable of reading. Therefore, the double-reading requirement should have been complied with.

PRINCIPLES:

• A testator who is not totally blind but has impaired vision may still be considered blind under Art. 808 for purposes of the double-reading requirement in executing a will.

• Compliance with the double-reading requirement of Art. 808 is necessary when the testator is considered blind, regardless of the testator's actual ability to read.