The court absolved the latter from the complaint and the plaintiffs took this appeal, assigning as errors of the lower court the holding that the appellants and appellees have been holding the disputed land in common; the finding that the possession exercised by the appellee Silverio P. Revelar and his predecessors in interest for more  than thirty years is adverse to  them, and the holding that  plaintiffs' action has prescribed; the finding that the deceased Canuto Pensader transferred to Fr.  Pablo Pajarillo the title to said land, when as a  matter of fact he was commissioned only to see that  the realty was distributed among the former's heirs; and finally its failure to permit the plaintiffs to introduce parol evidence concerning certain admissions made  by the appellee Alexandra  Pensader and her  husband and  by Vicente Revelar as to her title to the land.

The facts proven are: Canuto  Pensader, who was living maritally with Maria Revelar, acquired the land in question from Eulalio Punio.  Said  Canuto had several brothers whose children, nephews of said Canuto,  are  the  herein plaintiffs and defendant Alexandra Pensader, and died without leaving any forced heir.

In 1892,  Canuto Pensader donated one-half of the land in dispute to his paramour Maria Revelar, and the  other half to his niece Alejandra Pensader, defendant herein, mother of the other defendant, Silverio P. Revelar. By virtue of this  donation and immediately after the death of Canuto Pensader, which occurred at the end of the year 1892, Maria Revelar and Alejandra Pensader, the  latter being married with  Vicente Revelar, entered  upon the possession  of the land in question and since then  they have been cultivating it until the death of Vicente Revelar, whose heirs, in an extrajudicial partition and  in accord  with  Alejandra Pensader allotted the land to the herein defendant Silverio P. Revelar. Maria Revelar in turn waived her share of the realty  in favor of said Silverio P. Revelar, who has been  cultivating and improving the same and enjoying  its fruits  since then. The  possession of this Silverio P. Revelar, together with that of his parents and aunt Maria Revelar, dates back to  thirty years ago, and is continuous, public, peaceful, and under claim of ownership.

It was not shown that such possession was in common with  the plaintiffs.   As above  stated, the origin of said possession is adverse to such community, namely, the donation,  which although it is  not  established by a  sufficient documentary evidence, stands in this case as a circumstance explaining the exclusive character of the possession of Maria Revelar and Alejandra Pensader and that of their common successor in interest Silverio P. Revelar.  Besides, it appears that in the year  1905, the plaintiffs made an extrajudicial demand for the partition of this  property, but did not obtain it, the defendants having continued in possession and exclusive enjoyment thereof.

These facts, under the circumstances shown by the evidence as a  whole,  are sufficient to establish the adverse character of the possession which the defendant Silverio P. Revelar and his predecessors in interest had been exercising over the land in question, and, therefore, to justify the holding that the action brought by the plaintiffs has already prescribed.

We do not find in the assignments of error sufficient merit for altering the judgment appealed  from.  It  is, therefore,  affirmed with the costs against the appellants.   So ordered.

Arautto,  C. J., Johnson,  Street, Malcolm, Avancena, Ostrand, and Johns, JJ., concur.