This is an appeal from a decree ordering preliminary distribution whereby appellant’s objections to the preliminary distribution of certain government bonds were overruled and the court ordered, adjudged and decreed that the “. . . property be, and the same is hereby, distributed to Dorothy Walsh Doody, widow of decedent, as a portion of the estate of decedent to which she is entitled, ...”

A résumé of some of the facts is as follows:

The inventory and appraisement was filed June 17, 1960, and shows the following in pertinent part:

On September 23, 1960, respondent filed her petition for preliminary distribution whereby she sought distribution of the above bonds.

On October 18, 1960, Thomas Brady White and James White filed their objections to petition for preliminary distribution. Therein the following is set forth in part:

At the hearing decedent’s will and the inventory and appraisement were introduced in evidence; also, a certificate of the United States Treasurer showing bonds issued in the name of decedent, as owner, at the address of 222 South Occidental Boulevard, Los Angeles, for the period from May 1941 to November 1959. This certificate showed that there were 22 bonds, one group of ten $1,000 bonds issued in July 1948, and another group of eight $1,000 bonds and four $500 bonds issued in January 1950.

No objection was made to the reception in evidence of the will or inventory, and an express disclaimer of objection was made to the treasury certificate, a reservation being made only as to its weight.

The respondent testified that she married decedent on March 3, 1945; that this marriage was the first marriage of each; that there were no children the issue of such marriage; that they resided from 1946 to the time of decedent’s death at 222 South Occidental Boulevard; that she and decedent lived together continuously during their married life, and that it was a happy marriage.

Respondent further testified that she was present when the safe-deposit box was opened following the death of decedent; that it contained one group of ten $1,000 government bonds which were issued in July 1948, and were payable on death to respondent. There was also a second group of bonds consisting of eight $1,000 and four $500 bonds. This latter group was issued in 1950.

Over objection respondent testified: “My husband referred to those bonds as, ‘my $10,000 bonds,’ or ‘my two $10,000 bonds.’ ” She further testified that she did not know of decedent’s ever having owned or having a $10,000 single-issue government bond and that there were no bonds at their home.

The objectors called one witness, the executor and non-appealing residuary heir, Thomas Brady White. He testified that he had made a search for two $10,000 bonds and had not found any such bonds; that the search and investigation he made to ascertain whether there were other bonds (i.e., any bonds other than the two groups of bonds mentioned above) consisted of a letter to the Treasury Department requesting their knowledge as to whether there were two $10,000 bonds, and an examination of the contents of the safe-deposit box.

On April 17, 1961, the findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed. It is therein set forth in pertinent part as follows:

The substance of appellant’s numerous contentions is that decedent’s will is clear, certain and free from ambiguity and therefore no parol evidence was admissible. We agree with the belief of the trial judge, namely that the will is in fact ambiguous. It is stated in Estate of Sandersfeld, 187 Cal.App.2d 14, 17 [ 9 Cal.Rptr. 447 ], as follows:

Extrinsic evidence showed that decedent did not at the time of the execution of his will, nor at the time of his death, have or own any United States Savings Bonds other than the two groups referred to. Each of these two groups of bonds had a maturity value of $10,000.

Appellant has misconceived the prohibition contained in Probate Code section 105 insofar as that section excludes the oral declarations of the testator. Not all oral declarations are excluded. By its very terms, section 105 merely excludes “. . . the oral declarations of the testator as to his intentions; . . .” (Emphasis added.) What was stated in Estate of Nessel, 164 Cal.App.2d 798 [ 331 P.2d 205 ], is dispositive of appellant’s contention that the court erred in permitting respondent to testify that her husband referred to these two groups of bonds as “my $10,000 bonds” or “my two $10,000.00 bonds.” The court stated at page 804 that:

Appellant’s contention that the evidence is insufficient to support the trial court’s determination is likewise without merit.

It is appropriately stated in Estate of McDonald, 191 Cal.App.2d 565, 571 [ 12 Cal.Rptr. 823 ] :

The judgment is affirmed.

Wood, P. J., and Lillie, J., concurred.

A petition for a rehearing was denied June 27, 1962, and appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied August 1, 1962.

Paragraph Eighth provides: “Eighth: I give, devise and bequeath all the residue of my estate, both real and personal and wherever situated, including all lapsed and failed legacies and devises as follows: “ (a) Two-thirds (%) thereof to my nephew, Thomas Brady White; and “(h) One-third (%) thereof to my nephew, James White; or the survivor of them.”