This appeal by petitioner, the widow of George H. Allan, deceased, has been transferred by the Supreme Court to this court for decision pursuant to the provisions of article VI, section 4 of the Constitution of the state of California. It is from a decree determining heirship to the real property hereinafter described after trial before the court without a jury.

Viewing the evidence most favorable to the respondents, the essential facts are:

Mr. Allan and appellant were married in 1919. At the time of their marriage he had property of the approximate value of $100,000 and she possessed no property excepting a few personal belongings. April 1, 1934, Mr. Allan died intestate (Estate of Allan, 15 Cal. App. (2d) 272 [ 59 Pac. (2d) 425 ].) Subsequent to his marriage to appellant, decedent acquired the following described property:

Decedent left no lineal heirs, his surviving relatives consisting of his widow, appellant; a brother, Charles E. Allan; a nephew, William B. Ittner, Jr.; and two nieces, Helen Ittner Lorber and Gladys Ittner Orr, respondents. The trial court found that the real property above described was the separate property of Mr. Allan at the time of his death, and entered an appropriate decree determining that respondents were entitled to one-half thereof.

Appellant relies for reversal of the decree on these propositions :

As to appellant’s first proposition, an examination of the record discloses there was substantial evidence considered in connection with such inferences as the trial judge may have reasonably drawn therefrom to sustain the finding of facts that Parcels A and C, supra, were the separate property of decedent at the date of his death. For example, the income and estate tax returns filed by appellant as administratrix of decedent’s estate returned the property as the separate estate of Mr. Allan. This evidence alone was sufficient to sustain the trial court’s finding that the land described in Parcels A and C constituted separate property of the decedent. Therefore, further discussion of the evidence relative to these pieces of land is unnecessary. (Thatch v. Livingston, 13 Cal. App. (2d) 202 [ 56 Pac. (2d) 549 ] ; People v. Groves, 9 Cal. App. (2d) 317, 321 [ 49 Pac. (2d) 888 , 50 Pac. (2d) 813 ] ; Leavens v. Pinkham & McKevitt, 164 Cal. 242, 245 [ 128 Pac. 399 ].) As to the land described in Parcel B, supra, a different situation obtains, which we shall dispose of, in connection with appellant’s second proposition.

The second contention of appellant is tenable. The law is settled that when real estate has -been registered pursuant to the requirements of the Land Title Law of 1915, supra, and a transfer thereof is made and entered in the manner prescribed in said act, the certificate of ownership issued by the registrar of titles is conclusive evidence of the title as therein stated. (Robinson v. Kerrigan, 151 Cal. 40 , 44 [ 90 Pac. 129 , 121 Am. St. Rep. 90 , 12 Ann. Cas. 829].) Mr. Justice Shaw in the case just cited at page 45 thus states the rule:

In the instant case the land described in Parcel B, supra, had been registered under the Land Title Law of 1915 prior to the time Mr. Allan purchased it. Upon purchasing this property Mr. Allan and appellant executed and acknowleged the following document:

Applying the above stated rule of law to the foregoing uncontradicted fact, that is, that the owner’s certificate of title issued by the registrar of titles showed the land described in Parcel B as the community property of decedent and appellant, the trial court was in error in finding it to be the separate property of decedent at the time of his death.

The evidence described in paragraph (a) of appellant’s third proposition was properly received. The law is settled that the act or declaration of a party which is against his pecuniary or proprietary interest at the time when made is admissible in evidence against such party. (Sec. 1870, subd. 2, Code Civ. Proc.; Estate of Baird, 193 Cal. 225, 241 [ 223 Pac. 974 ].) It needs no argument to demonstrate that the act and declaration of appellant in executing and causing to be filed income and estate tax returns in which she declared that the land described in Parcels A and C, supra, were the separate property of her deceased husband were acts and declarations against her pecuniary and proprietary interests at the time they were made.

The evidence mentioned in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of appellant’s third proposition was inadmissible. However, in light of the well established rule that the character of the ownership of property, that is, whether separate or community, is to be determined from proof showing the mode of acquisition rather than by any declaration of one of the parties that the property was or was not community property (Bias v. Reed, 169 Cal. 33, 42 [ 145 Pac. 516 ]), we are of the opinion that such evidence was not prejudicial to appellant, and that under the provisions of article VI, section 4 1/2 of the Constitution of California such error must be disregarded by us.

Appellant’s final contention is without merit. The proffered evidence was from a tax expert and was of conversations between appellant and such tax expert who prepared the estate income and estate tax returns. His testimony of what he said to appellant or she said to him was not admissible. It was her acts and declarations in connection with the returns which were competent evidence and not the proffered testimony.

Appellant suggests numerous other errors in rulings of the trial court on the admission or rejection of evidence, some of which are supported by argument. Most of them, however, have received no further attention from appellant than the mere claim of error. We have examined them all and find that appellant’s contentions in this regard are without merit and that the rulings of which complaint is made were in no instance prejudicial except as above set forth.

For the foregoing reasons the decree is affirmed as to Parcels A and C and is reversed as to Parcel B. The case is remanded to the trial court with instructions to prepare and enter a modified decree in accord with the views expressed in this opinion.

Crail, P. J., concurred.

A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the District Court of Appeal on September 16, 1938.