G.R. No. 33365 , December 20, 1930
ESTATE OF THE DECEASED PAULINO DIANCIN. TEOPISTA DOLAR, proponent-appellant, vs. FIDEL DIANCIN, ET AL., oppositors-appellees.

FACTS

Paulino Diancin died, leaving behind a purported will dated November 13, 1927. The will, which disposed of an estate worth approximately P50,000, was signed not with a handwritten signature but with thumbmarks at the end and on the left margin of each page, accompanied by the notation “Paulino Diancin, Su Signo, Por Pedro Diamante.” The instrumental witnesses were Pedro Diamante, Inocentes Deocampo, and Juan Dominado. Teopista Dolar, the proponent-appellant, sought to have the will probated in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo. The oppositors-appellees, led by Fidel Diancin, contested the probate. The trial court denied probate solely on the ground that the thumbmarks on the will were not those of the testator. This conclusion was based on a comparison with an admittedly genuine thumbmark of Paulino Diancin found on a separate document of sale (Exhibit 8), and on conflicting expert testimonies. One expert opined the thumbmarks were not from the same person, while another believed they were. The trial judge also noted the ink used on the will was ordinary and blurred, unlike the special ink used on Exhibit 8, and expressed his personal view that there were great differences between the marks. The proponent’s request to send the will to Manila for further expert examination was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in denying the probate of the will on the sole ground that the thumbmarks thereon were not the thumbmarks of the testator, Paulino Diancin.

RULING

Yes, the trial court erred. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment and ordered the will admitted to probate.
The Court held that:
1. The statutory requirement for a will to be “signed” is satisfied not only by a written signature but also by the testator’s thumbmark.
2. While expert testimony on fingerprint identification is admissible, the Court is not bound by it, especially when the impressions are blurred and the characteristics are unclear. In such cases, the court may rely on its own observation of a distinct similarity between the genuine and questioned marks.
3. More importantly, the Court found the testimony of Diosdado Dominado, a witness called by both parties, to be credible. He testified that he prepared the will, that the thumbmarks on it were those of Paulino Diancin, and that he saw Diancin make those impressions. The three instrumental witnesses also corroborated the circumstances of the will’s execution.
Based on the evidence, the Supreme Court reached the definite conclusion that the document was the true will of Paulino Diancin and that the thumbmarks were his.