【 Reason for recommendation 】

This case is a typical case of ownership confirmation dispute arising from the purchase of a house without legal construction planning approval procedures through the method of "borrowing a name to buy a house" in the context of demolition and relocation. The house involved in the case was not approved for construction planning and had already been demolished before the lawsuit. The plaintiff Zhao claims to be the actual property owner of the house in question based on proof of payment for the purchase price, in order to further claim compensation benefits for the demolition and resettlement of the house in question from the township government.

After accepting the client's commission, our lawyer conducted extensive preparation work and analyzed the case in detail. They believe that the house involved in the case has been demolished and the corresponding property rights have been lost, so it cannot be confirmed that the property rights belong to Mr. Zhao. At the same time, the houses involved in the case are those that have not obtained construction planning approval, and the current law does not confirm the legality of such houses. Zhao has no right to claim ownership of the houses involved in the case based on this. In the end, the court basically adopted the representative opinion of our lawyers, obtained a winning judgment, and achieved a result that satisfied the client very much.


[Client] (Defendant in the original trial, Appellee): A township government in Chaoyang District, Beijing (hereinafter referred to as the "township government")

[Counterparty] (Plaintiff and Appellant in the original trial): Zhao

[Other parties in this case] (Defendant in the original trial, Appellee): Liu



【 Basic Case 】

In 2018, the defendant Liu filed a lawsuit against Zhao regarding a dispute over the validity of a contract related to the facts of this case, requesting confirmation of the legality and validity of the "Agreement" signed by both parties for buying a house under a borrowed name. In 2019, the court issued a civil judgment (2018) Jing 0105 Min Chu XXXX, rejecting Liu's lawsuit request. Later, Liu filed an appeal. The Beijing Third Intermediate People's Court issued a civil judgment (2020) Jing 03 Min Zhong XXX in 2020, rejecting the appeal and upholding the original judgment. The judgment includes the following contents:

Liu claimed that Zhao was the spouse of his sister, who invested in the purchase of the involved house in 1999, paid the purchase price in cash, and lived there until the demolition in 2017. Zhao informed Liu that only a Beijing household registration was allowed to purchase the involved house, so he used Zhao's name to make the purchase. After the demolition of the involved house in 2017, Zhao claimed ownership of the house, so the corresponding demolition compensation has not yet been issued. Zhao claimed that because the property in question was bought for his mother-in-law to live in, it was her mother-in-law who allowed Liu to temporarily reside in the property.

Liu submitted an "Agreement" regarding the lawsuit request, which stated that: 1. The property involved in the case was purchased by Party A Liu with funds, and the ownership of the property belongs to Party A Liu; 2. As Party A is not a resident of this city and is unable to obtain a property ownership certificate, Party A borrows the identity of Party B, Mr. Zhao, to obtain the Property Ownership Certificate for the aforementioned property; 3. Party B Zhao acknowledges that the property owner of the above-mentioned property is Party A Liu. If the house involved in the case encounters any demolition or other matters, only Liu has the right to dispose of it.

The court requested relevant materials from the village committee where the house in question is located. The village committee issued a "Certificate" to the court in 2018, which stated that after investigation, it was found that Zhao's purchase receipt (house payment amount: 53000 yuan), the copy of which was consistent with the amount and the original, did not have a property ownership certificate. The copy of the purchase receipt states that Zhao paid the purchase price in 1999.

During the trial, the township government claimed that the houses involved in the case were built by the village committee on collective land in the early 1990s to solve the housing problem of villagers. After resolving the housing issue in the village, the remaining houses were sold to the public, but the property ownership certificate of the involved houses was not obtained; The house involved in the case was demolished in 2017 due to the eviction of the green partition.

[Opinion of our lawyer's representative]

1. If property rights are established or extinguished due to legal construction, demolition, or other factual acts, they shall take effect upon the achievement of self execution. In the current case, the property rights have been extinguished as the house has been demolished. Therefore, it cannot be determined that Zhao is the owner of the house.

2. The house involved in the case was built on collective land in the village and sold to the public by the village committee. The property involved in the case has not obtained relevant planning approval procedures, therefore it does not have the legal premise to determine the ownership of the property rights based on the proof of payment of the purchase price and other relevant evidence.

3. Liu once filed a lawsuit against Zhao for a dispute over the validity of the contract. In this case, both courts confirmed that the lack of relevant planning approval procedures for the house involved in the case did not have legality, and therefore could not determine the validity of the "Agreement" between the two parties for buying the house under borrowed names. Based on this, if the ownership of the house involved in this case is confirmed, it would contradict the conclusion of the previous judgment.

Summary of the Judgment

1. The establishment and termination of property rights due to legal construction, demolition, and other factual acts shall take effect upon the achievement of self execution. In this case, all parties acknowledge that the house in question has been demolished and the corresponding property rights have been lost, therefore it cannot be confirmed that the house in question belongs to Mr. Zhao.  

2. The house involved in the case was constructed by the village committee on collective land before being demolished, without obtaining relevant planning approval procedures. In the absence of a legal determination of the subject matter, the court was unable to confirm its ownership. Therefore, the first instance court ruled that the rejection of Zhao's request to confirm the ownership of the house involved in the case is not inappropriate, and this court upholds it.

【 Judgment Result 】

Reject the appeal and uphold the original verdict.