Dolor vs Diancin

CASE NUMBER

G.R. No. L-33365             December 20, 1930

CASE TITLE

Estate of the deceased Paulino Diancin. TEOPISTA DOLAR, proponent-appellant, 
vs.
FIDEL DIANCIN, ET AL., oppositors-appellees.

LAWYERS

Montinola, Montinola and Hilado for appellant.
Lopez Vito and Lopez Vito for appellees.

PONENTE 

MALCOLM, J.:

FACTS OF THE CASE

The will in question is alleged to have been executed by Paulino Diancin at Dumangas, Iloilo, on November 13, 1927. A thumbmark appears at the end of the will and on the left hand margin of each of its pages in the following manner: "Paulino Diancin, Su Signo, Por Pedro Diamante." The witnesses to the will were the same Pedro Diamante, Inocentes Deocampo, and Juan Dominado. The will is detailed in nature, and disposes of an estate amounting approximately to P50,000.

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

The will of the deceased Paulino Diancin was denied probate in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo on the sole ground that the thumbmarks appearing thereon were not the thumbmarks of the testator. Disregarding the other errors assigned by the proponent of the will, we would direct attention to the third error which challenges squarely the correctness of this finding.

SUPREME COURT

We reach the very definite conclusion that the document presented for probate as the last will of the deceased Paulino Diancin was, in truth, his will, and that the thumbmarks appearing thereon were the thumbmarks of the testator .Accordingly, error is found, which means that the judgment appealed from must be, as it is hereby, reversed, and the will ordered admitted to probate, without special finding as to costs in this instance.

ISSUE RELATED TO WILLS AND SUCCESSION

               WHETHER OR NOT A THUMBARK CAN BE USED IN LIEU OF A SIGNITURE

HELD

YES, The requirement of the statute that the will shall be "signed" is satisfied not only the customary written signature but also by the testator's or testatrix' thumbmark .Expert testimony as to the identity of thumbmarks or fingerprints is of course admissible. The method of identification of fingerprints is a science requiring close study .Where thumb impressions are blurred and many of the characteristic marks far from clear, thus rendering it difficult to trace the features enumerated by experts as showing the identity or lack of identity of the impressions, the court is justified in refusing to accept the opinions of alleged experts and in substituting its own opinion that a distinct similarity in some respects between the admittedly genuine thumbmark and the questioned thumbmarks, is evident .This we do here. (Emperor vs. Abdul Hamid [1905], 32 Indian L. Rep., 759, cited in 3 Chamberlayne on the Modern Law of Evidence, sec. 2561, notes 3.)

There is another means of approach to the question and an obvious one. The three instrumental witnesses united in testifying concerning the circumstances surrounding the execution of the will. It was stated that in addition to the testator and themselves, on other person, Diosdado Dominado, was present. This latter individual was called as a witness by the oppositors to the will to identify Exhibit 8. He was later placed on the witness stand by the proponent on rebuttal, and thereupon declared positively that he was the one who prepared the will for the signature of Paulino Diancin; that the thumbmarks appearing on the will were those of Paulino Diancin, and that he saw Paulino Diancin make these impressions. The testimony of a witness called by both parties is worthy of credit.