On October 12, 1929,  Patricio Basto, now deceased, registered owner  of  an undivided one-half portion of the land described  in  Original Certificate of Title No. 25620, sold said property to the  spouses of  Emerenciana Quinit and Teodoro Gundran for the sum of P280  redeemable within ten years  (Exh. "A").   The redemption  period  expired without Basto exercising his right of repurchase.

Sometime in July, 1948, plaintiffs Florida Lagmay and Esteban Madruño filed the present  action (Civil Case No. 10330)  against  defendant Emerenciana  Quinit  (since widowed)  and her children, claiming that they had bought from  Quinit  in  1943, for  the amount of P450,  the same land that  Quinit and her deceased husband  had  acquired from  Patricio Basto  under the  deed  Exh.  "A",  as evidenced by the writing in the Ilocano dialect appearing at the back of  the last page of Exh.  "A",  and  praying that Quinit be ordered to execute the formal deed of sale as well as to deliver possession  of the land in  question to them.

After trial, the court below found that the writing  at the back of the  last page of Exh. "A" was a subrogation of the rights  of the vendor a retro Patricio Basto in favor of the plaintiffs spouses; that  before the  filing of the present case,  Civil Case No. 9859 was filed by one Floserfida Basto (relative of Patricio  Basto) against appellee Emerenciana  Quinit,  claiming ownership of the  land  in question as successor  of Patricio  Basto  by virtue of a repurchase allegedly made by her relative Florida Lagmay and Esteban Madruno (herein plaintiffs-appellants) during the Japanese occupation by virtue  of  the  writing at the back of Exh.  "A"; that said Case No. 9859 was, however, amicably settled, with Basto receiving P350 from  defendant Quinit and  herein  plaintiffs  Lagmay and  Madruño the amount  of  P450, in  consideration for which both Basto and plaintiffs waived, in favor of Quinit,  whatever rights  they had acquired under the writing at  the back of Exh. "A";  and rendered judgment holding that plaintiffs have  no  more right to the  property in  question and dismissing their complaint.
   
From the judgment  of  the trial  court, plaintiffs  appealed  directly to this Court, assigning as sole error that the  lower court  erred in interpreting the writing in  the Ilocano dialect at the back of Exh. "A" as a subrogation in their favor of the interests of Patricio  Basto in  the deed of sale con pacto de retro Exh. "A", instead of interpreting it as  an absolute sale of  the  land in question by defendant-appellee  Quinit to them.

We find no merit in the  appeal.  In the first place,  the writing in question is in the Ilocano dialect and no translation thereof appears to have been presented in evidence. Admission of this writing was objected to by defendants on the  ground that it  was not in an official language, and the same  was admitted conditionally,  subject to plaintiffs' presenting  official translation  thereof  (t.s.n.  pp.  12-13), which they never did.   Consequently, said writing is  not admissible in evidence (Sec. 57, Rule 123, Rules of Court).

In the second place, by limiting their appeal to the legal question of the correct interpretation of the  writing in the  Ilocano dialect at the back  of Exh.  "A", appellants are  deemed to  have  admitted the trial  court's findings that whatever rights they had acquired under said  writing had  been  bought back from them by  appellee Quinit for the sum of P450 incident to the settlement of the former case  No.  9859 and that therefore, they have no  more rights to the land in question. In view thereof, the question of the true nature and import of the contract noted in Exh. "A"  has become moot and academic. The judgment appealed  from  is,  therefore, affirmed, with costs against appellants Florida Lagmay and Esteban Madruño.   So ordered.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla,  Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo,  Labrador, Concepcion,  Endencia, and Felix, JJ.,  concur.