Dolar vs Diancin

This case talks about the controversial thumb mark of the deceased Paulino
Diancin which was place on his will. The probate was denied by the trial court judge on
the ground that the thumb marks did not belong to the testator. Further during the trial
both of the thumb marks of the testator were compared, on from the document of sale
and one from the will, the court even resorted to an expert witness to assess such
authenticity of the thumb mark in the person of Carlos J. Jaena. Thus the issue was
whether or not such thumb mark was authentic. The Supreme Court however resorted
to other evidences to rule the case, they resorted to Diosdado Dominado one of the
witnesses in the signing of the will of Paulino Diancin. He testified to the court that
indeed he was the one who prepared the will of Paulino before Paulino placed his
thumb mark.
In this Case I have made two observations:
1. That it is okay to substitute a signature with a thumb mark since the Supreme
Court in this case explained that a thumb mark is admissible.
2. I now understand the rationale behind the provision that the signing of a will must
have witnesses, because in instances like the case of Diancin were there is a
dispute in his thumb mark, the witness can attest that indeed such thumb mark.
The presence of such witness provides convenience