GR L 11801; (June, 1959) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-11801; June 30, 1959
CIRILO MODESTO, petitioner, vs. JESUS MODESTO, ET AL., ETC., respondents.
FACTS
Bruno Modesto died, and intestate proceedings were initiated. Jesus Modesto, as administrator of Bruno’s estate, filed a motion in the Court of First Instance of Leyte to cite and examine several persons, including his co-heir Cirilo Modesto, regarding properties allegedly concealed, embezzled, or fraudulently conveyed from the estate. The court appointed joint commissioners to verify properties belonging to the estate. Based on a subsequent motion by Jesus, the trial court issued an order on March 8, 1954, requiring Cirilo to deliver specific personal properties and cash (P1,700) to the administrator. Writs of execution and an alias writ were issued to enforce this order. The Sheriff attached and sold at public auction a real property registered under Cirilo Modesto’s name (Certificate of Title No. 30167) to Jesus Modesto. Cirilo filed motions to set aside the writs and for reconsideration, which were denied. He then filed this petition for certiorari to annul the proceedings.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court, acting as a probate court in intestate proceedings, had the authority under Section 6, Rule 88 of the Rules of Court to issue an order directing the delivery of properties and to enforce it by writs of execution against a person suspected of holding estate properties.
RULING
No. The petition for certiorari is granted. The trial court committed error. Section 6, Rule 88 (formerly Section 709 of Act 190) is merely a procedural device to elicit information or secure evidence from persons suspected of possessing or having knowledge of the deceased’s properties, or of having concealed, embezzled, or conveyed them. The probate court in such proceedings has no authority to adjudicate title or ownership of the disputed properties. If, after examination, there is reason to believe a person is keeping estate properties, the proper remedy for the administrator is to file an ordinary action in court to recover them. The trial court’s order for delivery and the subsequent writs of execution, including the sale of Cirilo’s real property, were issued without jurisdiction. Consequently, the order of March 8, 1954, the Writ of Execution of April 27, 1954, the alias Writ of Execution of May 10, 1955, and the Sheriff’s sale of the real property are set aside.