CASE NO. 4 Doctrine: the requirement of the statute that the will shall be signed is satisfied not only by the customary signature but also by the testator's testatrix' thumbmark. experts testimony as to the identity of the thumbmark or fingerprints is admissible. the method of identification of fingerprints is a science requiring close study. where the thumb impressions are blurred and many of the characteristic marks far from clear, thus rendering it difficult to trace the features enumerated by the experts as showing the identity or lack of identity of the impressions, the court is justified in refusing to accept the opinions of the alleged experts and in substituting its own opinion. Dolar vs. Diancin 55 PHIL 479 Ponente: MALCOLM, J. FACTS: The will of deceased Paulino Diancin which was executed by the latter at Dumangas, iloilo, on november 13, 1927 was denied probate in the court of first instance in iloilo on the sole ground that the thumbmarks appearing thereon were not the thumbmarks of the testator. 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 Pedro Diamante, Inocentes Deocampo, and Juan Dominado. A document of sale containing an admittedly genuine thumbmark of Paulino Diancin was presesnted as evidence for comparative purposes. One Carlos J. Jeana attempted to qualifiy as an expert witness and thereafter gave as his opinion that the thumbmarks had not been made by the same person. one Jose G. Villanueva also attempted to qualify as an expert witness however the latter gave as his opinion that the thumbmarks were authentic. However, both the opposing witnesses agreed that the ink used to make the thumbmarks on the will was of the ordinary type which blurred the characteristics of the mark. The petition of the proponent of the will to permit the will to be sent to manil to be examined by an expert was denied. the three instrumental witnesses united and stated that there was another person present during the execution of the will. thus, Diosdado Dominado was presented as a witness . the latter declared that he was the one who prepared the will and that the thumbmark that appeared on the will were those of Paulino Diancin. HELD: The Supreme Court concluded that the testimony given by Diosdado Dominado was worthy of credit and that the thumbmark appearing in the will were those of Paulino Diancin and that the will be admitted to probate.
CASE NO. 4 Doctrine:the requirement of the statute that the will
shall be signed is satisfed not only by the customary signature but
also by the testators testatri! thumbmar". e!#erts testimony as to
the identity of the thumbmar" or fnger#rints is admissible. the
method of identifcation of fnger#rints is a science requiring close
study.where the thumb im#ressions are blurred and many of the
characteristic mar"s far from clear$ thus rendering it di%cult to
trace the features enumerated by the e!#erts as showing the
identity or lac" of identity of the im#ressions$ the court is
&ustifed in refusing to acce#t the o#inions of the alleged
e!#erts and in substituting its own o#inion.Dolar vs. Diancin ''
()*+ 4,-(onente: .A+CO+.$ /.FACTS:0he will of deceased (aulino
1iancin which was e!ecuted by the latter at 1umangas$iloilo$ on
no2ember 34$ 3-5, was denied #robate in the court of frst instance
in iloilo on the sole ground that the thumbmar"s a##earing thereon
were not the thumbmar"s of the testator. a thumbmar" a##ears at the
end of the will and on the left hand margin of each of its #ages in
the following manner 6(aulino 1iancin$ Su Signo$ (or (edro
1iamante. 0he witnesses to the will were (edro 1iamante$ *nocentes
1eocam#o$ and /uan 1ominado.A document of sale containing an
admittedly genuine thumbmar" of (aulino 1iancinwas #resesnted as
e2idence for com#arati2e #ur#oses. One Carlos /. /eana attem#ted to
qualify as an e!#ert witness and thereafter ga2e as his o#inion
that the thumbmar"s had not been made by the same #erson. one /ose
7. 8illanue2a also attem#ted to qualify as an e!#ert witness
howe2er the latter ga2e as his o#inion that the thumbmar"s were
authentic. )owe2er$ both the o##osing witnessesagreed that the in"
used to ma"e the thumbmar"s on the will was of the ordinary ty#e
which blurred the characteristics of the mar". 0he #etition of the
#ro#onent of the will to #ermit the will to be sent to manil to be
e!amined by an e!#ert was denied.the three instrumental witnesses
united and stated that there was another #erson #resent during the
e!ecution of the will. thus$ 1iosdado 1ominado was#resented as a
witness . the latter declared that he was the one who #re#ared the
will and thatthe thumbmar" that a##eared on the will were those of
(aulino 1iancin. HELD:0he Su#reme Court concluded that the
testimony gi2en by 1iosdado 1ominado was worthy of credit and that
the thumbmar" a##earing in the will were those of (aulino
1iancinand that the will be admitted to #robate.
![]Reto4 dolar](https://img.pdfslide.net/doc/110x75/58a4419b1a28ab41618b5e41/reto4-dolar.jpg)