NATIVIDAD BATIQUIN ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. FILOMENA BATIQUIN ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

OSTRAND, J.:


This is an action for the partition of seven parcels ot land situated in the
municipality of Danao, Province of Cebu.

The parcels were originally community property of the marriage of Braulio
Gonzales and Dominga Batiquin. In August, 1896, the two spouses made their last
wills and testaments, each of them making the other his or her universal heir.
The wills bore the same date but appeared in separate instruments and were
executed in conformity with the laws at that time in force.

Dominga Batiquin died in May, 1898, and her husband in September, 1901,
neither of them leaving heirs by force of law. The plaintiffs are the potential
collateral heirs of Dominga Batiquin and the defendants are the collateral heirs
of Braulio Gonzales.

After the death of his wife, Gonzales remained in possession of the lands in
question until the year 1900, when he appears to have surrendered it to the
defendants, who have continued in such possession ever since.

It further appears that the plaintiffs have, from time to time, made demands
upon the defendants for a share in the property, such demands culminating in the
present action. The trial court held that the defendants are the owners of the
lands in question and absolved them from the complaint. From this judgment the
plaintiffs appeal.

In our opinion the case presents no serious difficulty. As stated above, the
will of Dominga Batiquin was executed in accordance with the law in force at the
time of its execution. Counsel for the plaintiffs suggests that the notary
public before whom the will was executed did not certify that he knew the
testatrix as required by article 699 of the Civil Code and that the will
therefore is void. In this counsel is mistaken. The last sentence of the
attestation clause of the will reads:

“De todo lo cual del conocimiento de la testadora y de haberse cumplido con
todas las formalidades que expresa el Capitulo 1.°, Titulo 3.°, Libro 3.°, del
Codigo Civil, doy fe.”

This constitutes a sufficient compliance with the law. Counsel’s argument
that the will is of no value as evidence because it has not been submitted for
probate is equally unsound. The present system of giving effect to wills by
probate proceedings was unknown to the Spanish law and was introduced in this
country by the Code of Civil Procedure of 1901. The testatrix in this case died
long before the enactment of that Code and under the law in force at the time of
her death, the title to the property left by her immediately vested in the
surviving husband, her testamentary universal heir. (Civil Code, arts. 657 and
661.) The property rights so vested were not in any manner affected by the
enactment of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Subs. 6, sec. 795, Code of Civil
Procedure.)

The appellants’ brief is principally devoted to a discussion of alleged
recognitions by the defendants of plaintiffs’ right to a share of the property
in question. We agree with the court below that such concessions as the
defendants are alleged to have offered were, at best, offers of compromise and
that evidence thereof was inadmissible. It is not disputed that the defendants
are the heirs of Braulio Gonzales and have been in actual possession of the
lands since his death and there is nothing to show that they have been divested,
neither in whole nor in part, of the title acquired by them from him.

The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed, with the costs against the
appellants. So ordered.

Araullo, C. J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Avancena, Johns, and
Romualdez, JJ., concur.