
    Morales, Petitioner v. District Court of Humacao, Respondent.
    Petition for a "Writ of Certiorari to the District Court of Humacao in a Proceeding for Designation of Heirs.
    No. 346.
    Decided March 14, 1922.
    Certiorari. — When the petition does not allege errors of procedure, hut only the erroneous consideration and disposition of th'e averments in the pleadings, the writ of certiorari should be denied.
    Id. — The fact that before the disposition of the appeal noted prescription might run against a new action that the petitioner might want to bring is not a sufficient ground for a writ of certiorari, for this is a risk that every litigant runs and there are ways of protecting oneself.
    The facts are stated in the opinion.
    
      Mr. A. Mena for the petitioner.
    The respondent did not appear.
   Mr. Justice Wolf

delivered the opinion of the court.

We do not find any error of procedure set forth in the petition, but rather alleged erroneous consideration and disposition of the averments of the pleadings. Even if we were in doubt, we should not issue the certiorari, because we are convinced that the matters complained of may be successfully reached on appeal.

The petitioner says that although an appeal has been noted, before the disposition of the appeal prescription might run against a new action that he might want to bring, but such a reason is hardly persuasive for this court, as this is a risk that every litigant runs and there are ways of protecting oneself. If, however, there is anything in such a position and tbe caso is really extraordinary, tbe petitioner might pray tbe court to advance tbe case on tbé calendar, or at tbe bearing draw attention to tbe probable running of tbe period of prescription,

Tbe petition is

Denied..

Chief Justice Del Toro and Justices Aldrey and Hutchi-son concurred.  