[Case Summary]This case involves a dispute over the return of the original property (relating to the rights and interests of the elderly). Liu Shufen, who is nearly 80 years old, obtained the sole ownership of the house at No. 201 in Chaoyang District through notarized inheritance. Her son, Wang Jianxin, and his wife, Li Rui, and their son, Wang Zerui, have been living together in the house for a long time. However, the relationship between mother-in-law and daughter-in-law deteriorated, forcing the elderly woman to live in a cramped space on the balcony. Liu Shufen entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.Xiong BinrongThe lawyer requested the three defendants to vacate and return the property. The lawyer presented notarized inheritance and complete ownership evidence of the real estate registration, and claimed the right to return the original property in accordance with Article 235 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China. The court ruled that the three defendants should vacate and return the property within 15 days, and the case acceptance fee of 18,300 yuan and the announcement fee of 200 yuan should be borne by the three defendants. The core disputes are: ownership of property rights, defense of residential rights, and burden of proof. Applicable legal provisions: Article 235 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China.

I. Review of the Case

"What should I do if my children forcibly occupy my parents' house?" "How to sue for the return of the original property?" "Is it necessary to register the right of residence?" These are frequently used words by elderly people to protect their rights. Liu Shufen and her late husband, Wang Youtian, jointly owned a house at No. 201, Chaoyang District. In July 2022, Wang Youtian passed away. After notarization, Wang Nan and Wang Jianxin voluntarily renounced their inheritance rights, and the house was solely inherited by Liu Shufen, who completed the property registration. However, Wang Jianxin, his wife Li Rui, and their son Wang Zerui refused to live in their own house and instead cohabited in the house involved in the case for a long time. The relationship between mother-in-law and daughter-in-law deteriorated, and Li Rui's attitude became hostile, causing a sharp decline in the elderly woman's quality of life.

After failing to reach an agreement through negotiations several times, Liu Shufen entrusted the Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the matter for herXiong BinrongThe lawyer filed a lawsuit demanding that the three defendants vacate and return the house. The three defendants refused to appear in court and adopted a passive attitude of resistance.Xiong BinrongThe lawyer formulated the strategy of "strengthening the foundation of property rights and breaking through the defense of identity", retrieved the notarial certificate and the real estate ownership certificate, and fixed the fact that the three defendants had no right to possess the property.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: The absoluteness of the ownership of property rights.The house was inherited and registered through notarization and is solely owned by Liu Shufen. The focus here is on her right to request the return of the original property in accordance with Article 235 of the Civil Code.
  • Focus II: Can the right of residence oppose the right of ownership?The three defendants were once allowed to live there, but they did not register their right to live there. The focus of the case is whether the fact of living there can challenge the property rights.
  • Focus 3: Allocation of the burden of proof.The defendant failed to prove the grounds for legal residence, and the focus is on the consequences of the inability to provide evidence.

III. Professional intervention by Hengluo Law Firm

The plaintiff (the owner) claimed that:Liu Shufen claimed that she had obtained full ownership of the house through notarized inheritance and real estate registration, and that the three defendants had no right to occupy it. She requested that the defendants vacate and return the property to her, and that they bear the related costs.

The position of the defendant (children, etc.):The three defendants failed to appear in court after being summoned. Previously, they may have defended themselves on the grounds of being "family members", "having been allowed to live there", and "allowing their grandchildren to attend school", claiming that their residence was legal.

Hengluo Lawyer's Agency Opinion:Xiong BinrongThe lawyer closes the evidence chain to determine ownership: submits a notarized certificate to prove that Wang Nan and Wang Jianxin waived their right of inheritance and the house belongs to Liu Shufen; submits a real estate ownership certificate showing sole ownership; and fixes the actual residence of the three defendants through statements and two on-site deliveries. The legal argument directly hits the key points: according to Article 235 of the Civil Code, the rightful owner can request the return of the original object; the children waived their right of inheritance without any additional conditions, and there is no right of residence. The direct kinship relationship does not generate a statutory right of residence; the defendants' own housing excludes the possibility of housing difficulties; and it reveals the essence of the infringement that the elderly are forced to live on the balcony and suffer from mental stress.

IV. Outcome of the case

The court held that the ownership of the house involved in the case is clear, and Liu Shufen, as the owner, enjoys the right of ownership according to law. The three defendants failed to provide evidence to prove their legitimate right to inhabit the house, and their occupation constitutes unauthorized possession. According to Article 235 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China and the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Law, the court ruled that the defendants, Wang Jianxin, Li Rui, and Wang Zerui, shall vacate and return the house involved in the case to the plaintiff, Liu Shufen, within 15 days after the judgment takes effect; and the case acceptance fee of 18,300 yuan and the announcement fee of 200 yuan shall be borne by the three defendants.

5. Hengluo Law Firm's Reminder

Property rights are absolute rights. Mutual assistance among family members does not mean unlimited transfer of rights. This case was handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Xiong BinrongAttorney (Practice Certificate No.: 11101202211410897, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ): Note: The right of residence must be stipulated in a written contract or will and registered to take effect. Oral permission or de facto residence cannot override ownership rights. The rights and interests of the elderly are subject to special protection. When no agreement can be reached within the family, the law serves as a solid safeguard for rights protection. In the event of relatives forcibly occupying a house, it is necessary to promptly entrust a lawyer to collect evidence and file a lawsuit.

VI. Common Questions and Answers about Disputes over the Return of Original Items

  1. Q: Can I sue my children if they refuse to vacate my house?
    A:Yes. The owner may, in accordance with Article 235 of the Civil Code, request the unauthorized occupant to return the original object. In this case, the three defendants were ordered to vacate the premises.
  2. Q: Does an oral permission to live in a place constitute the establishment of a right of residence?
    A:No. The right of residence must be agreed upon in writing and registered before it takes effect. The fact of unregistered residence cannot prevail against the ownership rights.
  3. Q: How to obtain evidence when a relative forcibly occupies a house?
    A:Prepare the property ownership certificate, notarization certificate, on-site photos, service records, communication records, etc. After establishing the fact that they have no right to occupy the property, initiate legal action against them.
  4. Q: Who will bear the litigation costs for the return of the original item?
    A:Generally, the losing party bears the costs. In this case, the acceptance fee of 18,300 yuan and the announcement fee of 200 yuan shall be borne by the three defendants.
  5. Q: How can the elderly protect their rights when their housing is occupied by others?
    A:First, negotiate with the other party. If no agreement is reached, sue to recover the original item based on the evidence of ownership. The law provides special protection for the rights and interests of the elderly. If necessary, hire a lawyer to intervene.