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.