Dolar v. Diancin
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The proponent-appellant, Teopista Dolar, sought the probate of the will of the deceased Paulino Diancin. The oppositors-appellees contested the probate. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Iloilo denied the probate of the will solely on the ground that the thumbmarks appearing on the will were not those of the testator. The proponent appealed this finding. The Petition: The proponent challenged the trial court's finding regarding the authenticity of the thumbmarks, arguing that the denial of probate was erroneous.
Issue(s)
Whether the thumbmarks on the will of Paulino Diancin are authentic. Whether a thumbmark constitutes a valid signature for the execution of a will.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of First Instance, ordering the will to be admitted to probate. The Court found that the thumbmarks on the will were indeed those of the testator, Paulino Diancin.
Ratio Decidendi
On the authenticity of the thumbmarks: The Court noted that while an alleged expert testified that the thumbmarks were not made by the same person, and that the ink used on the will blurred the characteristics of the marks compared to a genuine thumbmark on Exhibit 8, this was not conclusive. The Court also considered the testimony of Diosdado Dominado, who was called by both parties. Dominado testified positively that he prepared the will for Paulino Diancin's signature, that the thumbmarks on the will were Paulino Diancin's, and that he witnessed Paulino Diancin make these impressions. The Court found the testimony of a witness called by both parties to be worthy of credit. Furthermore, the Court stated that even where thumb impressions are blurred and difficult to trace, making it hard to rely solely on expert opinions, the court is justified in substituting its own opinion if a distinct similarity is evident between the questioned and genuine thumbmarks. In this case, the Court found such a similarity. On whether a thumbmark constitutes a valid signature: The Court held that the requirement of the statute that a will shall be "signed" is satisfied not only by a customary written signature but also by the testator's or testatrix' thumbmark. The Court acknowledged that expert testimony as to the identity of thumbmarks is admissible, as the method of identification is a science. However, it reiterated that when impressions are blurred, the court may rely on its own judgment.
Main Doctrine
A thumbmark is a valid signature for the execution of a will, and the identification of thumbmarks, while admissible through expert testimony, can also be determined by the court's own observation, especially when the impressions are blurred.