G.R. No. 33365 - Dolar vs. Diancin

The case involves the estate of the deceased Paulino Diancin.
Teopista Dolar is the proponent and appellant, while Fidel Diancin et al. are the oppositors and appellees.
The will in question was executed on November 13, 1927, at Dumangas, Iloilo.
The estate disposed of by the will was valued at approximately P50,000.

The will was detailed and contained a thumbmark purportedly made by Paulino Diancin.
The thumbmark appears at the end of the document and on the left-hand margin of each page, accompanied by the inscription: "Paulino Diancin, Su Signo, Por Pedro Diamante."
The witnesses to the will were Pedro Diamante, Inocentes Deocampo, and Juan Dominado.

Comparative evidence was introduced through Exhibit 8, a document of sale bearing an admittedly genuine thumbmark of Paulino Diancin.
Photographs comparing the thumbmarks on the will with those on Exhibit 8 were also presented as evidence.
Two individuals attempted to qualify as experts:

The petition by the proponent to send the will to Manila for expert examination was denied.
A critical observation by the witnesses noted that the ink used on the will was of an ordinary type, which blurred the thumbmark’s characteristics, unlike the clearly formed thumbmark on Exhibit 8 that was produced using special ink.
The trial judge expressed his personal view that there were significant differences between the questioned thumbmarks and the genuine thumbmark.

All three instrumental witnesses testified regarding the circumstances surrounding the execution of the will.
They noted that besides the testator and themselves, another person, Diosdado Dominado, was present during the execution.
Diosdado Dominado, initially called by the oppositors to identify Exhibit 8, was later called by the proponent on rebuttal.
He affirmed that he had prepared the will for Paulino Diancin’s signature and that the thumbmarks on the will were indeed those of Paulino Diancin.

Whether the thumbmarks on the will were truly those of the deceased testator, Paulino Diancin.
If the differences in the quality of the ink (ordinary on the will versus special on Exhibit 8) undermine the thumbmark’s reliability.

Whether the conflicting opinions of the two alleged experts (one affirming and one denying the authenticity of the thumbmarks) should determine the will’s validity.
The appropriateness of rejecting the petition for expert examination in Manila.

The significance of the testimony of Diosdado Dominado, who testified for both parties regarding the execution of the will.
Whether this consistent testimony should override the discrepancies noted by the experts.