[Case Summary]This case involves a dispute over the return of the original property. Liu * lent out the public rental housing in Chaoyang District, Beijing, which he owned, to Pang * for living. Later, the house was sold with the ownership rights purchased, but Pang * refused to vacate the property. Liu * entrusted Hengluo Law Firm to handle the case.Xiong BinrongThe agent filed a lawsuit, and in the first-instance trial, Pang * was ordered to vacate the property. Pang * appealed on the grounds of gift and unit housing allocation. The core dispute was whether Pang *'s long-term residence and possession of the original house ownership certificate could oppose the right of ownership, and whether the first-instance procedure was illegal. In the second-instance trial, the court adopted the lawyer's defense opinion, dismissed the appeal, and upheld the original judgment. Applicable legal provisions: laws related to the protection of property rights.

I. Review of the Case Facts

"What should I do if the person I lent my house to refuses to leave?" and "Can I count it as a gift if I use the old house deed?" are common challenges in property rights disputes. Liu * and Pang * were ordinary friends. Pang * was entrusted by Liu * to take care of her old boss. In early 2000, Liu * saw that Pang * was suffering from domestic violence and divorced, leaving her with no one to rely on in Beijing. Liu * lent Pang * her public rental housing unit at No. 701 Chaoyang District for living, and Pang * promised to pay the usage fee but did not specify the standard.

In November 2019, after Liu * bought the property rights of the house involved in the case, he decided to sell it and notified Pang * to move out. Pang * only paid 100,000 yuan in compensation for the first time, but still refused to cooperate with the eviction. In August 2022, Liu * sold the house and signed a sales contract. When urging Pang * to vacate the house within the delivery deadline, he was rejected, so he entrusted a lawyer to handle the matter on his behalf.Xiong BinrongThe lawyer filed a lawsuit, and the first-instance court ruled that Pang * should vacate the house within seven days. Pang * appealed, claiming that the house was allocated by the unit and should belong to him, and that Liu * had promised to transfer the ownership and use the loan to pay for the house, claiming it was a gift.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Can Pang *'s long-term residence and possession of the original house ownership certificate oppose Liu *'s right of ownership?Is the possession and use over multiple years sufficient to establish a property right?
  • Focus II: Whether there is a gift or transfer agreement between the two parties.Pang * claimed that whether Liu *'s promise to transfer the ownership and use the loan to pay for the house was valid or not.
  • Focus Three: Whether the first-instance procedure was illegal.Pang * claimed that it was not in line with the facts that he did not appear in court in the first instance.

III. The professional intervention of Hengluo Law Firm

The original complaint stated that:The house involved in the case was purchased by Liu * through a public housing purchase agreement, and the property rights were registered under Liu *'s name. It was lent out for living, but Pang * refused to vacate the property and infringed on the right of ownership. Therefore, Liu * requests the court to order Pang * to vacate the property.

The defendant (Pang *)'s side argued that:The appeal claims that the first-instance court's finding that he did not appear in court is inconsistent with the facts; he claims that the house was allocated by the unit to Liu * and that Liu * had promised to transfer the ownership of the house several times. In 2019, when borrowing money, he promised to transfer the ownership of the house if he did not repay the loan, and that he should be recognized as having received a gift of the house since he had lived in it since 2000.

Hengluo Lawyer's Agency Opinion:Xiong BinrongThe lawyer's defense pointed out that the house involved in the case was purchased by Liu * through a public housing purchase agreement, and the property rights certificate was registered under Liu's name. Although Pang * had lived there for many years and held the original house ownership certificate, his corresponding actions were not sufficient to challenge the property rights enjoyed by Liu *. Pang *'s so-called gift and transfer commitment lacked sufficient evidence, and the nature of his stay was clearly defined. The first-instance judgment identified the facts clearly and applied the law correctly, and should be upheld.

IV. Outcome of the case

The appellate court adopted the defense opinion of Hengluo Law Firm, holding that the first-instance judgment had correctly identified the facts and applied the law, and should be upheld. The court pointed out that the house involved in the case was purchased by Liu * through a public housing purchase agreement, and the property ownership certificate was registered under Liu *'s name. Although Pang * had lived in and used the house for many years and held the original house ownership certificate registered under Liu *'s name, his corresponding actions were not sufficient to oppose Liu *'s right of ownership over the house involved in the case. Therefore, Liu *'s claim for Pang * to return the house should be supported. In the final judgment, the appeal was dismissed and the original judgment was upheld. Pang * should vacate the house involved in the case and return it to Liu *.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Advice

In the relationship of living in someone else's house, the property registration is the core basis for the ownership of the property. Long-term residence and holding the original house deed generally do not form rights that can oppose the ownership of the property. This case is handled by Beijing Hengluo Law Firm [Xiong BinrongThe lawyer (practice certificate number: 11101202211410897, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative organ) acted as the agent. In this case, the lawyer focused on the effectiveness of the registration of property rights, and the second-instance court maintained the client's successful result of keeping the house.

VI. Common Questions and Answers about the Protection of Housing Property Rights

  1. Q: What should I do if the person I lent my house to refuses to vacate it?
    A: If the property rights are registered under the lender's name, the lender can claim the return of the original property based on the right of ownership and sue the possessor to vacate the premises.
  2. Q: Can I claim that the house belongs to me just by holding the old house ownership certificate?
    A: No. If the owner of the house registration is clear and the possession and use of the house are insufficient to oppose the property rights, holding the original house registration does not constitute a property right.
  3. Q: Does an oral promise to transfer ownership count as a gift?
    A: A gift requires a clear expression of intent and delivery. If there is only a verbal promise but no evidence, it generally cannot be deemed as a valid gift.
  4. Q: After the public rental housing is bought out, who will own the property rights?
    A: If the lessee buys out the public housing and registers the property rights in accordance with the public housing sale policy, the property rights shall belong to the buyer and can be disposed of according to law.
  5. Q: If the second-instance court upholds the original verdict, can we still appeal it?
    A: The second-instance judgment is final and takes effect immediately. If you are not satisfied with the judgment, you can apply for a retrial through the judicial supervision procedure, but you need to have statutory grounds and evidence for the application.