[Case Summary]This case is a civil dispute over the purchase of a house under a false name. Wang Jia claimed that the resettlement house purchased by her parents under her name belonged to her, while Wang Bing disagreed and entrusted Beijing Henglue Law Firm to handle the case on his behalf.Xiong BinrongThe lawyer argued that the house in question should be divided among the heirs as part of the inheritance. Both the first-instance and second-instance courts adopted the lawyer's opinion, finding that Wang Jia failed to prove the existence of a borrow-name agreement and actual investment, and dismissed her lawsuit request to confirm that the house belonged to her. The second-instance court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment. The core disputes involve the borrow-name purchase agreement and the actual investment, as well as the common practice of certificate custody. Applicable legal provisions include Article 67 and Article 177 Paragraph 1 Item 1 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, etc.

I. Review of the case

"How to prove buying a house under someone else's name", "Is it valid to buy a resettlement house under someone else's name", and "The risk of losing a lawsuit when buying a house under someone else's name" are frequently searched terms related to real estate disputes. In 1997, Wang Jia, Wang Yi, and Wang Bing's parents received resettlement housing after the demolition of their public housing. They were allocated two resettlement houses, No. 502 and No. 602 in Building 6 of Xicheng District, Beijing. Wang Jia claimed that during the demolition, it was agreed that No. 502 would belong to her, and she used her parents' work experience to purchase the house, which was registered under her father's name, Wang Ding. The house was registered under Wang Ding's name on March 18, 2004, and Wang Jia renovated and lived in it ever since. After her parents passed away, Wang Jia sued to confirm that she owned No. 502. Wang Yi agreed with this, but Wang Bing opposed it, arguing that the house was a legacy and had been entrusted to Hengluo Law Firm to handle the legal procedures.Xiong BinrongAttorney representation.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Whether there was an agreement between Wang Jia and her parents to buy a house under someone else's name.The core requirement for purchasing a house under someone else's name is to have a clear agreement (in writing or through a clear oral agreement), which Wang Jia failed to provide.
  • Focus 2: Did Wang Jia actually make the investment?The evidence of investment is insufficient, and the witness's testimony lacks credibility due to the existence of a kinship relationship or the fact that the evidence in question is hearsay.
  • Focus 3: Whether the custody and transfer of warrants comply with the common practice of using a nominal name for ownership.When Wang Ding was still alive, Wang Jia had not gone through the formalities of property transfer, and claimed that "the temporary house deed was lost", which was inconsistent with the common practice of borrowing someone else's name to buy a house.

III. Professional intervention by Hengluo Lawyers

The plaintiff (Wang Jia) claimed that:Wang Jia claimed that House No. 502 actually belonged to her and that the purchase of the house was in the name of her parents. She also provided evidence such as the identity of the demolition resettlement recipients, witness statements, and applications to retrieve the demolition files in support of her appeal.

The defendant (Wang Bing) argued that:Wang Bing believes that House No. 502 is the inheritance of the heir and should be divided in the inheritance process, and opposes Wang Jia's claim of buying the house under a false name.

Hengluo Lawyer's Agency Opinion:Xiong BinrongThe lawyer summarized the core elements of buying a house under someone else's name (consent, actual investment, and actual control of use), and directly addressed the weaknesses in the evidence: the supplementary witness H*, who is the sister of Wang Jia's spouse and a party with a vested interest, only testified that "she heard that the money was borrowed to buy the house," without objective corroboration; the court failed to retrieve the demolition archives, making it impossible to confirm the identity of the resettlement recipients; during Wang Ding's lifetime, Wang Jia never transferred the ownership and failed to provide the core title documents, which contradicts the common practice of buying a house under someone else's name; and Wang Jia has never been able to prove the existence of a consent agreement, which is a core requirement for the validity of a contract for buying a house under someone else's name.

IV. Outcome of the case

The court of first instance adopted the opinion of attorney Xiong Binrong, holding that Wang Jia failed to prove the loan-name agreement, the evidence of investment was insufficient, living together does not equal ownership agreement, and the invoice for the provisional residence permit could not directly point to the loan-name purchase of the house. The court ruled to dismiss all of Wang Jia's claims. In the second instance, Wang Jia's supplementary evidence still had deficiencies. The court of second instance held that the existing evidence had three core deficiencies: no loan-name agreement, insufficient investment, and the custody and transfer of the property ownership certificate being contrary to common sense. The court of first instance's judgment was found to have clear facts and correct application of the law. In accordance with Article 177, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Civil Procedure Law, the court ruled to dismiss the appeal and maintain the original judgment, and the case acceptance fee of the second instance shall be borne by Wang Jia.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Xiong BinrongAttorney (Practice Certificate No.: 11101202211410897, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative organ). Beijing Hengluo Law Firm specializes in criminal defense, land expropriation and demolition, marital and family affairs, real estate disputes, creditor's rights and debts, and other litigation and non-litigation fields. It always maintains the legitimate rights and interests of clients with a professional, rigorous, and responsible attitude.

VI. Common Questions and Answers about Disputes over Buying a House under Someone Else's Name

  1. Q: How can I prove that buying a house under someone else's name is valid?
    A:It is necessary to prove that the two parties have a clear agreement to use the borrowed name (a written agreement or a clear oral agreement), that the borrower actually paid the purchase price, and that the borrower actually controls and uses the house. All three elements are indispensable, and the agreement is particularly crucial.
  2. Q: Can only the fact of residence prove that the house was bought under someone else's name?
    A:No. Long-term residence can only prove the fact of use, and cannot be directly equated with an ownership agreement or a borrow-name agreement. The court usually does not recognize the establishment of a borrow-name purchase on this basis.
  3. Q: Why is it necessary to transfer the ownership of the house in time when buying a house under someone else's name?
    A:In practice, if the actual right holders fail to handle the transfer of ownership for a long time and are unable to provide the purchase contract and the title certificate, this is inconsistent with the common sense that the right holders should properly keep the title certificate when buying a house under someone else's name, and they are likely to be deemed as having evidence defects and thus lose the lawsuit.
  4. Q: Is there a high risk of buying a house under someone else's name between relatives?
    A:The risk is relatively high. Relatives' testimonies have low evidentiary value due to conflicts of interest, and it's difficult to verify the source of funds, which are mostly in the form of cash or transactional payments. Without a written agreement, it's extremely difficult to prove the borrow-under-name relationship in litigation.
  5. Q: If someone loses a lawsuit after purchasing a house under someone else's name, who will own the house in the end?
    A:If the borrowed-name relationship is not established, the registered right holder is the legal owner, and the house is usually treated as the registered person's property (such as inheritance of estate). The borrowed-name person can only claim rights based on contributions or other means.