[Case Summary]This case is a rehearing of a dispute over the right of residence. After the demolition of the single-story house in Dongcheng District of Beijing that Su * leased, he was resettled and obtained housing No. 01 in Chaonei (with a construction area of 76.11 square meters). After Su *'s death, the house was inherited by his sons, Xu * and Xu *1. Su *'s nieces, Wei *1 and Wei *2, claimed that Su * used their household registration quotas and enjoyed resettlement benefits when purchasing the house, and that they, as the resettled individuals, enjoyed the right of residence in the house involved in the case. Therefore, they entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case for them.Li YonghuiThe lawyer filed a lawsuit. The court of first instance adopted the opinion of Hengluo Law Firm and ruled that the two individuals have the right to live and use the house involved in the case. The other party, Xu *1, was not satisfied with the verdict and applied for a retrial.Li YonghuiThe lawyer submitted a defense opinion, arguing around the resettlement contract, household registration quotas, and the lack of a statute of limitations for litigation over the right to inhabit. The core dispute is whether the resettled individuals still enjoy the right to inhabit after their household registration is transferred out, and whether the litigation of the right to inhabit is subject to a statute of limitations. The applicable legal provisions are the provisions of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China on the right to inhabit and the related provisions on expropriation compensation and resettlement. In the end, the court ruled to reject the application for a rehearing.

I. Review of the case facts

In the wave of urban renewal and dilapidated housing renovation, the ownership of resettlement housing often becomes the focus of disputes among relatives. The most frequently searched questions by parties include "How to confirm the ownership of resettlement housing", "Does the niece have the right to live in her aunt's resettlement housing", and "What should be done if the heirs occupy the resettlement housing after demolition". This case originated from the "On-site Resettlement Contract for Dilapidated Housing Renovation Area" signed by Beijing Zhuzong Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. and Su * in 2002: Su * had two formal houses in Chaonei Area, with a usable area of 20.35 square meters and a construction area of 27.07 square meters. There were five people to be resettled, namely Su *, Xu *, Xu *, Wei *, and Wei *2. Su * voluntarily purchased the on-site resettlement housing built in Chaonei Area, namely Chaonei No. 01 housing, with a construction area of 76.11 square meters. The seller delivered the house on November 10, 2003, and Su * obtained the property rights certificate for the involved house on July 15, 2005.

On August 20, 2020, Su * died, and the house involved in the case was inherited by Xu * and Xu *1. Since Su * used the household registration quota of Wei *1 and Wei *2 when purchasing the house involved in the case and enjoyed the purchase discount, the two of them, as the resettled people, claimed the right to live and use the house involved in the case. In order to safeguard their own legitimate rights and interests, the two of them entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case for them.Li YonghuiThe lawyer represented the plaintiff in this case. The defendants, Xu * and Xu * 1, admitted that the kinship relationship described by the plaintiff was true, but disagreed with the plaintiff's litigation request. After the trial, the court of first instance adopted the views and demands of Hengluo Law Firm, and finally ruled that the plaintiffs, Wei * 1 and Wei * 2, have the right to live and use the No. 01 house in Dongcheng District, Beijing City.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: After the relocated persons' household registration is moved out of the house involved in the case, do they still enjoy the right to reside there?Xu *1 claimed in the retrial that the two respondents had already moved their household registration away from the house involved in the case, and argued that his right of residence had been lost; while Hengluo Law Firm argued that the right of residence originated from the resettlement contract and the identity of the resettled person, and was not transferable based on whether the household registration was retained or not.
  • Focus 2: Is the statute of limitations applicable to lawsuits for the confirmation of the right to residence?The applicant for retrial claimed that the statute of limitations for the lawsuit in this case had passed; Hengluo Lawyer argued that the right of residence claimed by the respondent belongs to the right of confirmation, and there is no statute of limitations for the action of confirmation in law.
  • Focus Three: Whether the two respondents are the resettlement objects of the houses involved in the case.The applicant for the retrial claimed that the two respondents were not the relocation targets. Hengluo Law Firm refuted this claim by citing the fact that the relocation contract specified five relocation recipients and the use of household registration quotas.

III. The professional intervention of Hengluo Law Firm

The plaintiff (the respondent) claims that:Wei *1 and Wei *2 claimed that Su * used their household registration quotas and enjoyed preferential policies when purchasing the house, and that they, as the resettled individuals, had the right to live and use the house involved in the case. They requested to confirm that they had the right to live in House No. 01 in Dongcheng District, Beijing City.

The defendant (the applicant for retrial) argued that:Xu *1 applied for a rehearing, claiming that the respondents and his family were neither family members nor relatives, and the first-instance court's finding that his niece was a member of his family was a factual error; the two respondents were not the intended recipients of the housing; the housing-related expenses had always been paid by the appellant's family; the two respondents' household registration had long been transferred elsewhere; and the statute of limitations for the case had passed. He requested that the first-instance judgment be revoked, the case be sent back for a rehearing, or the judgment be modified in accordance with the law.

Hengluo Lawyer's Agency Opinion:Regarding the application for retrial,Li YonghuiThe attorney submitted a defense opinion, which was systematically explained as follows: In the first-instance trial, the applicant for review acknowledged the kinship relationship stated by the respondents; at that time, there were five resettled individuals, including the two respondents. Su * used the household registration quotas of the two respondents when purchasing the house, and the two respondents enjoyed the right to inhabit the house involved in the case; Su * enjoyed preferential policies based on the factor of resettled individuals. When the owner of the house obtained ownership according to the resettlement contract, he/she was obligated to ensure that the resettled individuals, Wei *1 and Wei *2, could inhabit and use the house involved in the case; other resettled individuals who lived with the demolition victims were explicitly listed as resettled individuals in the compensation and resettlement agreement, and they enjoyed the right to inhabit the resettlement houses; the right to inhabit claimed by the respondents belongs to the confirmation of ownership, and there is no statute of limitations for confirmation suits in law. In summary, Xu *1's application for review lacks factual and legal basis, and it is requested to be rejected.

IV. Outcome of the case

After the trial, the court held that the reasons put forward by the applicant for retrial and the evidence materials submitted by him could not prove that there were errors in the basic factual basis and judgment result of the first-instance court; furthermore, the first-instance court did not have the situation of "erroneous application of the law" as stipulated in the relevant judicial interpretations. In summary, the court ruled to reject Xu *1's application for retrial. At this point, the right of residence of Wei *1 and Wei *2 to the No. 01 house in Dongcheng District of Beijing has been confirmed by the first-instance court and maintained by the retrial, and has been finally confirmed.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

After the homeowner, as the person to be relocated, obtains the relocation housing, the relatives who live with him/her or actually use the house as the relocation recipients enjoy the right to live in the relocation housing, that is, the relocation recipients have the right to live in the relocation housing. In the dispute over the right to live, the right holder can request to confirm his/her right to live in the house through litigation, and register the right after the judicial decision is confirmed. This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Li YonghuiThe lawyer (practice license number: 11101199611955812, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) acted on behalf of the client. By accurately grasping the rules of resettlement contracts, household registration quotas, and the right to ownership of residences, he successfully rejected the other party's application for a retrial and safeguarded the client's legitimate rights and interests.

VI. Common Questions About Residence Right Disputes FAQ

  1. Q: After the resettled people's household registration is transferred out of the resettlement housing, do they still enjoy the right to live there?
    A:The right of residence stems from the resettlement contract and the identity of the resettled person, and is not transferred based on whether the household registration is retained. As long as the household registration quota was used during the purchase of the house and the resettlement benefits were enjoyed, even if the household registration is transferred elsewhere, the resettled person can still claim the right of residence.
  2. Q: Does the statute of limitations apply to disputes over the right to inhabit public housing?
    A:Claiming to confirm one's right to inhabit the house belongs to a lawsuit for confirming ownership. There is no statute of limitations for confirmatory lawsuits, and parties can file lawsuits to confirm their rights at any time.
  3. Q: If a relative finances the purchase of a house based on the population resettlement quota, can they claim the right of residence?
    A:If the relative used their household registration quota to purchase a house and enjoyed purchase discounts, they, as the resettled persons, have the right to live in the resettlement housing, which can be confirmed through litigation.
  4. Q: After the first-instance court confirms the right of residence, what should the other party do if they apply for a rehearing?
    A:The review requires proving that there were indeed errors in the basic facts or the application of the law in the first instance; if the evidence such as the resettlement contract and household registration quotas is solid, the defendant can submit a defense based on the fact that there is no statute of limitations for property rights and the identity of the resettled persons, in order to strive to have the review application rejected.
  5. Q: After the right of residence is confirmed, how can its effectiveness be guaranteed?
    A:After the right holder's right to reside is confirmed by a judicial decision, he/she may apply to the registration authority for the registration of the right to reside in accordance with the law, so that the right can have the publicity effect of opposing third parties.