Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1930 > December 1930 Decisions > G.R. No. 33365 December 20, 1930 - TEOPISTA DOLAR v. FIDEL DIANCIN

055 Phil 479:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 33365. December 20, 1930.]

Estate of the deceased Paulino Diancin. TEOPISTA DOLAR, proponent-appellant, v. FIDEL DIANCIN ET AL., Oppositors-Appellees.

Montinola, Montinola & Hilado for Appellant.

Lopez Vito & Lopez Vito for Appellees.

SYLLABUS


1. WILLS, EXECUTION OF; SIGNING BY THUMBMARKS. — The requirement of the statute that the will shall be "signed" is satisfied not only by the customary written signature but also by the testator’s or testatrix’ thumbmark.

2. ID.; ID.; EXPERT’S TESTIMONY AS TO IDENTITY OF THUMBMARKS. — Expert’s testimony as to the identity of thumbmarks or fingerprints is admissible. The method of identification of fingerprints is a science requiring close study.

3. ID.; ID.; ID. — 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. (Emperor v. Abdul Hamid [1905], 32 Indian L. Rep., 759.)

4. WITNESSES, CREDIBILITY OF. — The testimony of a witness called by both parties is worthy of credit.


D E C I S I O N


MALCOLM, J.:


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.

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.

For comparative purposes, Exhibit 8, a document of sale containing an admittedly genuine thumbmark of Paulino Diancin, was presented. Photographs of the thumbmarks on the will and of the thumbmark on Exhibit 8 were also offered in evidence. One, Carlos J. Jaena, attempted to qualify as an "expert," and thereafter gave as his opinion that the thumbmarks had not been made by the same person. One, Jose G. Villanueva, likewise attempted to qualify as an "expert" and gave as his opinion that the thumbmarks were authentic. The petition of the proponent of the will to permit the will to be sent to Manila to be examined by an expert was denied. On one fact only were the opposing witnesses agreed, and this was that the ink used to make the thumbmarks on the will was of the ordinary type which blurred the characteristics of the marks, whereas the thumbmark on Exhibit 8 was formed clearly by the use of the special ink required for this purpose. The trial judge expressed his personal view as being that great differences existed between the questioned marks and the genuine mark.

The requirement of the statute that the will shall be "signed" is satisfied not only by 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 v. Abdul Hamid [1905], 32 Indian L. Rep., 759, cited in 3 Chamberlayne on the Modern Law of Evidence, sec. 2561, note 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, one 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 say Paulino Diancin make these impressions. The testimony of a witness called by both parties is worthy of credit.

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.

Avanceña, C.J., Johnson, Street, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns, Romualdez and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






December-1930 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 33494 December 2, 1930 - SERAPIA OCHOA v. SERAFIN DE LEON

    055 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. 32776 December 4, 1930 - SEVERO DOMINGO v. SANTOS ET., AL.

    055 Phil 361

  • G.R. No. 33537 December 5, 1930 - ESCUDERO ELEC. SERVICE CO. v. MARGARITA ROXAS Y AYALA VIUDA DE SORIANO

    055 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 33113 December 13, 1930 - PHILIPPINE TRUST CO. v. LUCIO ECHAUS

    055 Phil 381

  • G.R. No. 33131 December 13, 1930 - EMILIO GONZALEZ LA O v. YEK TONG LIN FIRE & MARINE INS., CO.

    055 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. 33304 December 13, 1930 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONSTANTE SOTELO

    055 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. 33399 December 13, 1930 - RAYMUNDO TRANSPORTATION CO. v. LAGUNA-TAYABAS BUS CO.

    055 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. 34450 December 13, 1930 - BENITO DE LOS REYES v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BATANGAS

    055 Phil 408

  • G.R. No. 34484 December 13, 1930 - FERNANDO MAULIT v. DOMINGO SAMONTE

    055 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. 33584 December 15, 1930 - MARCELO ENRIQUEZ v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

    055 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. 32663 December 15, 1930 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGAPITO FRANCISCO

    055 Phil 1008

  • G.R. No. 34616 December 15, 1930 - HERMENEGILDO MAKAPAGAL v. FRANCISCO SANTAMARIA

    055 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. 33434 December 16, 1930 - MUNICIPALITY OF TARLAC v. TOMAS BESA

    055 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. 33380 December 17, 1930 - TEODORA ASTUDILLO v. MANILA ELECTRIC CO.

    055 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. 33463 December 18, 1930 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BASILIO BORINAGA

    055 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. 33196 December 19, 1930 - TAN SENGUAN & CO. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    055 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. 32336 December 20, 1930 - JULIO C. ABELLA v. GUILLERMO B. FRANCISCO

    055 Phil 447

  • G.R. No. 32443 December 20, 1930 - INOCENTA RAMAS VIUDA DE PENALES v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    055 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. 32465 December 20, 1930 - LA SOCIEDAD DALISAY v. JANUARIO DE LOS REYES

    055 Phil 452

  • G.R. No. 32629 December 20, 1930 - LUIS TORIBIO v. JULIAN DECASA

    055 Phil 461

  • G.R. No. 33318 December 20, 1930 - SMITH v. MUNICIPALITY OF ZAMBOANGA

    055 Phil 466

  • G.R. No. 33365 December 20, 1930 - TEOPISTA DOLAR v. FIDEL DIANCIN

    055 Phil 479

  • G.R. Nos. 33393-33398 December 20, 1930 - LI TECK SAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    055 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. 34539 December 20, 1930 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO CONCEPCION

    055 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 32226 December 29, 1930 - ESTANISLAO REYES v. SEBASTIANA MARTINEZ

    055 Phil 492

  • G.R. No. 32260 December 29, 1930 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. PABLO ROCHA

    055 Phil 497

  • G.R. No. 32433 December 29, 1930 - FRANCISCO DE GUZMAN v. CRISANTO DE LA FUENTE

    055 Phil 501

  • G.R. No. 32471 December 29, 1930 - SEVERINO JAYME v. JUAN D. SALVADOR

    055 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. 32598 December 29, 1930 - MARTIN GONZALEZ v. SISENANDO TURLA

    055 Phil 514

  • G.R. No. 32640 December 29, 1930 - WALTER A. SMITH & CO. v. CADWALLADER GIBSON LUMBER CO.

    055 Phil 517

  • G.R. No. 32906 December 29, 1930 - ADORACION ROSALES DE ECHAUS ET AL. v. MARIA GAN

    055 Phil 527

  • G.R. No. 32945 December 29, 1930 - BANK OF THE PHIL. v. WALTER A. SMITH & CO.

    055 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. 33176 December 29, 1930 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENIGNO MARIÑO

    055 Phil 537

  • G.R. No. 33646 December 29, 1930 - PHILIPPINE LAND IMPROVEMENT CO. v. SIMEON BLAS

    055 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. 33654 December 29, 1930 - KABANKALAN SUGAR CO. v. JOSEFA PACHECO

    055 Phil 555

  • G.R. No. 34428 December 29, 1930 - BALTAZAR MORALES v. ISIDRO PAREDES

    055 Phil 565