This is a petition  for certiorari and  for a writ of preliminary injunction filed by Cirilo Modesto to set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of Leyte dated March 8, 1954, the writ of execution dated April 27, 1954 as well as the  alias writ of  execution  dated  November 10, 1955.

The  facts in this  case are  not in dispute.  It would appear that Bruno  Modesto died  leaving several heirs, among  them, Cirilo  Modesto and Jesus Modesto.   In the course of the intestate proceedings, Jesus Modesto, acting as administrator of the estate of Bruno, filed on November 7, 1053, in the Court of  First Instance of Tacloban, Leyte, a motion to cite and  examine under oath several persons, especially Cirilo Modesto, regarding properties  concealed, embezzled or fraudulently conveyed.  On December 7,1953 the court issued an order appointing the Provincial Sheriff of Leyte and the Chief of Police of  Tanawan,  Leyte, as joint commissioners,  to verify and ascertain persons  who were holding, claiming or possessing properties  belonging to the  estate of the deceased  Bruno Modesto.  In  said motion of Jesus Modesto he listed said properties supposed to belong to the estate, classified as follows: jewels under items 1, 2 and 3; furniture and other personal properties under items 4-10;  the 11th item is supposed to be cash taken from  a deposit in the Office of the Chief of Police of Tanawan, Leyte,  after taking funeral and other expenses, in the amount of Pl,700; and real properties under items 12-26.

On January 12, 1954, the joint commissioners submitted their report. On March 1,1954 Jesus Modesto, administrator,  filed a  motion  in court to require Cirilo Modesto to turn over to him as administrator the personal properties belonging to the intestate supposed to be in Cirilo's possession.  Pursuant to said motion, the trial court, oh March 8, 1954, issued an order requiring Cirilo Modesto to deliver to  the administrator  personal  properties  listed  in  the order, such as one narra  aparador, 1 desk, 1 looking glass 5x3 ft.,  1 trunk containing clothes,  1 bicycle, 11 pieces of steel matting and money said to have been taken from a deposit made  with the  Chief of Police in the amount of P1,700.00,   Thereafter, on  April 27, 1954, a writ of execution was issued and on May 10, 1955 an alias writ, of execution was also  issued  by the trial court.   By virtue of  said writ of execution the Provincial  Sheriff issued a Notice of Attachment against the real property described in  Certificate of Title No. 30167 of the Register of Deeds of Leyte and under Tax Assessment in the name of Cirilo Modesto,

On June 2, 1955  Cirilo Modesto filed an Urgent Motion to  Set Aside the Writ of Execution  and for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction,  which  motion  was  opposed  by Jesus.  On June 4, 1955  the Provincial Sheriff  sold at public auction  the  real  property above-mentioned to the highest and only bidder  Jesus Modesto for P2,454.92 and on June 6, 1956, the Provincial Sheriff issued a Sheriffs Certificate of Final Sale in favor of  Jesus.  On June 29, 1956 Jesus Modesto filed  a Motion for a writ of Possession. On July 11,1956 Cirilo filed his Motion for Reconsideration of the order dated June 4 which the trial court denied On August 3, 1956, in pursuance of the motion for a Writ of Possession, the Provincial Sheriff issued a notification to Cirilo placing Jesus in  possession  of the real property sold to him.   Cirilo then  filed  the  present  petition  for certiorari to annul the proceedings had before the Court of First Instance of Leyte.

The trial court, in issuing its order of March  8, 1954 requiring Cirilo to deliver the  properties listed  therein to Jesus  as administrator, supposedly acted  under  the provisions  of Section  6,  Rule  88 of the Rules of Court which reads as follows:

"Sec.   6. Proceedings  when  property  concealed,  embezzled,  or fraudulently conveyed. If an executor or administrator, heir, legatee,  creditor, or other individual interested in the estate of the deceased, complains to the court having  jurisdiction of the estate that a person is suspected of having concealed, embezzled, or conveyed away  any of the money, goods or chattels of the deceased,  or that such person has in his possession or has knowledge of any deed, conveyance, bond, contract, or other writing which contains evidence  of or tends to disclose the right, title, interest, or claim  of the deceased to real or personal estate, or the last will and testament of the deceased, the court may  cite such suspected person to appear before it and may examine him on oath on the matter of such complaint; and  if the  person so cited refused to  appear, or to answer on such examination or such interrogatories as are  put to him, the court may punish him for contempt, and may commit him to prison until he  submits to the order to the court.  The interrogatories put to any such  person, and his answers thereto, shall be in writing and shall be  filed in the clerk's office."

In this the trial court  committed  error because the purpose of the section above-reproduced, which section was taken from Section 709 of Act  190, is merely to elicit information  or to secure  evidence from those persons suspected  of  having  possessed or having knowledge of the properties left by a deceased person, or of having concealed, embezzled  or conveyed any of the  said properties of the deceased.  In such proceedings  the trial court  has no authority to  decide whether  or not said properties, real  or personal, belong to the estate or to the persons examined. If, after such examination there is good reason to believe that said person or persons examined are keeping properties belonging to the estate, then the next step to be taken should be  for the  administrator to  file an  ordinary action in  court to recover the same  (Alafriz vs. Mina, 28 Phil., 137; Cui vs. Piccio, 91 Phil., 713; 48 Off. Gaz. [7] 2769; Changco vs. Madrelejos, 12 Phil., 543; Guanco vs. PNB, 54 Phil., 244, cited in Moran's Rules  of Court, Vol.  2  1957 Edition, pp. 443-444).

The order requiring Cirilo to deliver the properties and cash stated in the order,  as  belonging to the estate, said that Cirilo was supposed to have admitted having received or taken possession of said properties after the death of Bruno.  This statement or findings of the lower court is not supported  by  the evidence on record.  As a matter of fact, in the answer of Cirilo to the motion of the administrator, he claimed that although he held the aparador mentioned in Item 4  in the  list of  properties, nevertheless, said  furniture  belonged  to  their  parents  and  so  Bruno Modesto had only 1/6  share;  that he,  Cirilo, did not have the looking  glass  mentioned in the  motion because the same had been taken by Jesus himself, neither did he have the desk  in question; that though he held a trunk,  it was empty and only contained clothes which were torn; that the bicycle in question was in  the possession of Mauricio Modesto,  the  nephew  of Bruno;  that he, Cirilo, did not keep  the  11  pieces of  steel  matting;  neither did he ever receive the amount of P1,700.00 supposed  to  have  been deposited in  the office  of the Chief of Police.   But,  even if Cirilo had admitted possession of the properties which he was required by the court to  deliver to Jesus,  still it was necessary for the ordinary  courts, not the probate court, to  determine  the  title  and  ownership of  said properties.

In  view of the  foregoing, the petition for certiorari is hereby granted and the order of the trial court of  March 8, 1954, the Writ  of Execution of  April 27, 1954 and the alias  Writ of Execution of May 10, 1955, and  of  course the sale made by  the Sheriff  of the real property covered by Certificate of Title No. 30167 are set aside.   Respondent Jesus Modesto will pay the costs.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion,  Endencia,  and Barrera,  JJ., concur.