Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking the reversal and setting aside of the May 21, 2003 Decision¹  and the July 17, 2003 Resolution²  of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 71372. The assailed CA Decision reversed and set aside the Decisions of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of San Fernando City, La Union, Branch 2 in Civil Case No. 3463³  and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Fernando City, La Union, Branch 26 in Civil Case No. 6617,⁴  while the questioned CA Resolution denied petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration.

The factual and procedural antecedents of the case are as follows:

On May 25, 1999, herein private respondent Celia Tadiar (Celia) filed with the MTC of San Fernando, La Union a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer against herein petitioners Heirs of Antonio Feraren. In said Complaint, Celia alleged that she and her three brothers are co-owners of a 1,200 square meter parcel of land located in the poblacion of San Fernando City in La Union; that on September 21, 1960, the said lot was sold by their father to the spouses Antonio and Justina Feraren (Spouses Feraren) on pacto de retro; it was stipulated that the right to repurchase may be exercised within ten years; on August 31, 1970, Celia and her co-heirs re-acquired the subject property; thereafter, the lot was leased on a month-to-month basis to the Spouses Feraren who have constructed a residential house thereon; that sometime in March 1992, Celia and her co-heirs informed the Spouses Feraren of their intention to terminate their lease contract; the Spouses Feraren, in turn, offered to sell them their house or buy the subject lot, which offers were declined by Celia and her co-heirs and, instead, allowed the Spouses Feraren to continue renting the property; after the death of Antonio in 1995, herein petitioners requested Celia and her co-heirs to extend the lease until June 30, 1997 and even volunteered to temporarily vacate the said property; Celia and her co-heirs agreed and they did not even increase the rentals; nonetheless, petitioners failed to comply with their commitment to temporarily vacate; they continued to stay within the premises of the subject property and refused to vacate the same notwithstanding repeated demands from Celia and her co-heirs.⁵

In their Answer, herein petitioners contended that a 128-square-meter portion of the lot being claimed by private respondent is their property; even before the Spouses Feraren entered into a contract of sale with pacto de retro with the father of Celia, the former were already in possession of the remaining portion of the subject property on the strength of a lease contract executed in their favor by the latter in 1949; their construction of a residential house on the subject property was by virtue of a right granted under the said contract of lease; petitioners were very much willing to vacate the disputed lot but only upon payment of the value of all the improvements that they have legally introduced as builders in good faith on the said lot, which includes the house presently standing thereon as well as the concrete fence surrounding the said house; in the alternative, they offered to buy the parcel of land subject of the complaint.⁶

For failure of the parties to arrive at an amicable settlement, the MTC, in its Order⁷  dated November 3, 2000, directed them to submit their position papers and other evidence within ten (10) days from receipt of a copy of the said Order.

Private respondent did not file a position paper.

On the other hand, petitioners filed their Position Paper⁸  on March 15, 2001. Petitioners alleged therein that their parents are builders in good faith having built their house on the lot in question during the time that they were the owners of the disputed lot.

On June 15, 2001, the MTC rendered its Decision dismissing the complaint for unlawful detainer. The trial court gave credence to petitioners' contention that their parents built the house in controversy on the subject lot while they were the owners of the said lot. As such, the MTC held that as long as private respondent refuses to reimburse petitioners of the value of the improvements they have introduced on the lot in question, they (petitioners) may not be compelled to vacate the same.

On appeal, the RTC of San Fernando City, La Union, in its Decision dated January 28, 2002, affirmed in toto the judgment of the MTC.

Private respondent then filed a petition for review with the CA.

On May 21, 2003, the CA promulgated its presently assailed Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the judgment rendered by the Municipal Trial Court of San Fernando City, La Union in Civil Case No. 3463 and the Decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court of La Union in the same case are both REVERSED and SET ASIDE. A new judgment is hereby rendered:

1. Declaring the respondents not entitled to reimbursement for the cost of their residential house built on the land owned by the petitioner; and

2. Directing the respondents to vacate the premises and restore possession thereof to the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.⁹

The CA based its Decision on its finding that the subject residential house was built during the time petitioners' parents were lessees of the lot in question.

Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but the same was denied by the CA via its Resolution dated July 17, 2003.

Hence, the present petition with the following assignment of errors:

I

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONERS ADMITTED IN THEIR ANSWER THAT THEIR RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WAS CONSTRUCTED DURING THE LIFETIME OF THE LEASE CONTRACT AND NOT DURING THE 10-YEAR PERIOD WHEN THE LOT WHERE IT STOOD WAS SOLD UNDER PACTO DE RETRO TO THE PETITIONERS' PARENTS AS SHOWN BY UNREBUTTED EVIDENCE.

II

THE RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN REVERSING THE DECISIONS OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT AND THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF SAN FERNANDO CITY, LA UNION.¹⁰

Petitioners allege in the instant petition that the house presently standing on the subject parcel of land is different from the house built on the same lot in 1949. Petitioners insist on their claim that the house built at the time that their parents were lessees of the subject property in 1949 was demolished to give way to the construction of the present house which was erected sometime in the late 1960's when the said lot was then owned by their parents by virtue of the pacto de retro sale executed in the latter's favor on September 21, 1960.

The Court finds the petition unmeritorious.

At the outset, the Court notes that the issues raised in the present petition are essentially questions of fact. It is fundamental that a petition for review on certiorari filed with this Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court shall, as a general rule, raise only questions of law and that this Court is not duty-bound to analyze again and weigh the evidence introduced in and considered by the tribunals below.¹¹  However, there are recognized exceptions to this rule, to wit:

(a) When the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or  conjectures;

(b) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible;

(c)  When there is grave abuse of discretion;

(d)  When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;

(e)  When the findings of facts are conflicting;

(f)  When in making its findings the CA went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee;

(g)  When the CA's findings are contrary to those by the trial court;

(h) When the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;

(i)  When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent;

(j)  When the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; or

(k) When the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.¹²

In the present case, the findings of the MTC and the RTC are contrary to those made by the CA. The RTC affirmed the findings of the MTC that the subject house which is presently standing on the disputed parcel of land was built at the time that the ownership of the said lot was in the name of petitioners' parents. The CA, on the other hand, ruled that the abovementioned house was constructed when petitioners' parents were in possession of the lot in question as lessees. Thus, this Court's review of such findings is warranted.

A careful review of the records and the evidence presented in the instant case shows that the CA did not commit error in finding that the house in question was built at the time petitioners' parents possessed the subject lot as lessees.

Firstly, the Court agrees with the CA that petitioners' Position Paper and the affidavits of its witnesses should not have been considered by the trial courts since these were filed beyond the 10-day reglementary period required under Section 10, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court and Section 9 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.¹³  Petitioners do not dispute the appellate court's finding that they submitted their position paper and affidavits more than three months after the deadline set by the abovementioned rules. In this regard, this Court, in Teraña v. De Sagun,¹⁴  held as follows:

x x x  By its express terms, the purpose of the RSP [Revised Rule on Summary Procedure] is to achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination