This is a petition for a  writ of certiorari which seeks to annul certain proceedings had in case No. 4453 of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, wherein  the petitioner and his wife were the plaintiffs and the respondent was the defendant.  That case concerned the ownership of a piece of t land and after the proper proceedings, the court, on  January 12, 1933, rendered a decision the pertinent  part of which reads as follows:

"Re-afirmando que el Certificado de Transferencia de Titulo  No. 5708 (Exhibit A), expedido a favor de los demandantes, ha sido obtenido correctamente  y ellos  son los que deben ser reconocidos propietarios absolutos de dicho lote 6; que, como duenos de este lote, tienen  derecho a recobrarlo,  indemnizando  previamente al demandado el valor de la edificacion que en  ha hecho, con  derecho a retenerlo esta  mientras no se le abone por aquellos dicha mejora necesaria y util, o en caso contrario pague  el demandado a los demandantes el precio del terreno abarcado por la edification,  haeiendose dueno legitimo del mismo.

"Sin especial pronunciamiento sobre las costas."

Upon an  appeal taken  by the petitioner and his wife, this court on June 26,1934¹, affirmed the judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance  of Bulacan.  The pertinent part of the decision of this court reads as follows:

"The trial court in case No. 4453 confirmed the said certificate of transfer of title No. 5708 in favor of the plaintiffs Testa and wife and declared them to be  the absolute owners of said lot 6 and  entitled to the possession of the same, first indemnifying however the defendant for the value of the improvement which he has made or, applying article 361 of the Civil Code, authorizing the defendant upon payment of the value  of the ground occupied by his improvements to acquire the title to the same.  The court in case No. 4450 dismissed the action.

"Upon the whole case we think the judgment of the court is correct and just and the same is  hereby  affirmed without special  pronouncement of  costs.   Case No. 4453  (G. R. No. 40109) is remanded for  further proceedings in conformity with this decision."

Pursuant to  this decision the case was remanded  to the court below.  Thereafter,  upon  petition of the parties, that court appointed three commissioners  to fix the value  of the land in question and  the  building erected thereon by the defendant in that case, the respondent herein.  On October 12, 1934, the majority of the commissioners submitted their report; and on October 30,  1934,  the court  entered  the following order:

"Visto el informe de los Comisionados Jose Teodoro y Andres Roxas de fecha octubre 12, 1934, no se encuentran motivos suficientes para rechazar  del  todo  dicho informe suscrito por la  mayoria de los comisionados, no jconstando siquiera la disidencia del  otro  Comisionado Dalmacio Ferrer.   Sin embargo, considerando todas las  circunstancias del caso, creese que se debe rebajar  el precio del edificio grande a P2,000 y el de la tienda, a P500.

"En cumplimiento de la decision de la Corte Suprema, el Juzgado ordena que los demandantes Testa y su esposa tengan derecho a la posesion y goce exclusivos del lote No. 6,  indemnizando al demandado  Maximo de  Vera  en  la suma de P2,500 por el  edificio grande  y la  tienda; asimismo, que el demandado Maximo de Vera tenga  derecho a adquirir  el titulo, dominio y posesion  exclusivo del referido lote, pagando a los demandantes la suma de P432 como su valor.   La parte que deposite antes en la escribania  de este Juzgado la suma  con que debe indemnizar a  la otra, tendra derecho al  titulo, dominio y posesion  del lote No. 6 con sus mejoras; y en el caso que ambas partes depositaren al  mismo tiempo las cantidades correspondientes,  se dara preferencia al demandado, por la razon de que dichos edificios  valen mas que el terreno, y la  adjudication de la finca con sus  mejoras a el supone, menor transmision  de derecho."

On November 6, 1934, the respondent deposited with the clerk of the Court  of First Instance of Bulacan the sum of P434.16 to cover the value of the land in question, lot No. 6,  as fixed  by the  court, and also the  fees for the  deposit. The petitioner and his wife did not make any deposit whatever neither did they appeal from the  order of the court of October 30, 1934.

On October 22, 1935, the respondent filed in G. L. R.  O. Record No. 3878, wherein the title to lot No. 6  was decreed, a motion praying that the proper certificate of  title  be issued in his name and that of his wife.  To this motion the petitioner and his wife filed  an objection which was, however, later withdrawn; but they asked the court  to order the payment to them of the money deposited with the clerk to  cover the value of their land.

On December 23, 1935, the court ordered the register of deeds of Bulacan to issue a new certificate  of title in the name of  the respondent and his wife covering lot No. 6.

Without going into an extended discussion of the subject, it seems clear that upon the facts disclosed by the record the petition for a writ of  certiorari must be denied.  In the final analysis, the  question raised by the pleadings is whether the  order of  the Court of  First Instance of Bulacan of October 30, 1934, should be set aside and all proceedings taken  thereunder declared  null  and void.  While that order might have  been  erroneous, the error could  have been cured by appeal.   Not only did the petitioner fail to avail himself of that  remedy,' but he  has been guilty of laches in the  assertion of his rights.   Certiorari will not lie to correct errors of law  which do not  go into the jurisdiction of the court.   (Ello vs. Judge of First Instance of Antique  and Valdevin, 49  Phil., 152.)

The petition for a writ of certiorari is,  therefore, denied. So ordered.

Avanceña,  C. J., Villa-Real, Imperial,  Diaz, Recto,  and Laurel, JJ., concur.

---

¹ Testa vs. De Vera (60 Phil. 1020, 1021).