This action was instituted to secure the judicial partition of the tract of land described in the complaint.  Plaintiffs insist  that they, together with the defendant, are the descendants  of a common ancestor, the original  owner of the land; that on his death, about  forty years ago, defendant's father took possession of this  tract of land and continued in possession  until his death in  the year 1897; that since that date  defendant  has been in  possession;  but  that by right  of inheritance,  they are entitled  to share  with the defendant  in  the ownership and profits  of this property, and in this action to have a decree  for the judicial partition of the common  property and  an  assignment  of  their respective shares in accordance with  the laws of  descent.

Defendant  denies the allegations of the complaint,  and alleges that she, together with her husband, acquired the tract in question by purchase from the owners of the various parcels of land of which it is composed.

Plaintiffs' evidence is  limited to  the oral testimony of a few  interested witnesses speaking  largely  from hearsay, who testify that  they have  always understood  that the land in question was originally the  property of one Maria Bautista, the wife of Pablo Bautista; that on her death it fell into the hands of her husband, Pablo Calavia, who died some forty years ago; that on  his death, one of his sons, the father of the defendant, took possession  and continued in possession  until he died 'in  February,  1897,  when his daughter, the defendant, took possession; and that since that time she has retained exclusive possession, and denied the right of the plaintiffs to share in the fruits and profits.

We do not think that  this vague and uncertain oral testimony as to the alleged mode by which the defendant acquired possession of the land in question is sufficient to overcome the definite and positive testimony of defendant that she acquired it in her lifetime  by purchase from the owners of the three separate parcels  of which it is  made up; and even if it were granted that this land did at one time belong to the common ancestor, we think that the plaintiffs' own evidence casts such a doubt upon their claim to share therein by right of inheritance,  that  judgment was properly rendered in the  court below in  favor of  the defendant  in possession.

Testifying on their own  behalf,  some of the plaintiffs admit that after the death of Pablo Calavia, a part of his property was  divided among  his heirs, though they  insist that the land in question was not included in the extrajudicial partition made at that time.  No attempt is made to account for the omission of this  particular tract of  land from the terms of the partition agreement.   Plaintiffs also admit that until this action was instituted, no  steps had ever been taken by themselves or their predecessors in interest to establish their claim to an interest in this property, from which they allege they have been excluded for some forty years. While  there is  nothing in the  record which would justify us in  doubting1 the sincerity and good faith of these plaintiffs in  their claim of an interest in this property, we agree  with the trial judge that  the evidence  on which they base their claim is wholly insufficient to overcome the presumption in favor of the  right  of possession and ownership of the defendant, arising from the admitted fact that an  extra judicial  partition of  a part,  at  least,  of the  property of the  common  ancestor  was made after his death, and  the uninterrupted possession for so many years of this particular part of the land by the defendant and her  father.

The judgment of the lower court in favor of  the defendant  should, therefore, be  affirmed with the  costs of this instance against the  appellants.  It is  so ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Mapa, Moreland, and Trent, JJ., concur.