[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, it is possible to assert rights, but one cannot directly oppose the seizure solely on the basis of an internal borrow-name agreement. If the house is registered under the nominal owner's name and is seized due to the nominal owner's own debts, the actual investor should file an execution objection as a third party; if the objection is rejected, the actual investor must file a lawsuit challenging the execution within 15 days from the date of delivery of the ruling. Whether the execution can be avoided depends on whether a legally valid written sales contract was signed before the seizure, whether the actual investor lawfully possessed the house, whether the full purchase price was paid or the remaining purchase price was deposited for execution, and whether the actual investor failed to handle the transfer registration for reasons other than their own. If the purpose of borrowing the name is to evade policies such as purchase restrictions and loan restrictions, there is a high risk that it will be deemed contrary to public order and good customs and the right of expectation of property rights will be denied.

I. Problem Background and Typical Scenarios

The practice of buying a house under someone else's name is often seen in situations such as purchase restrictions, loan restrictions, first-home purchase discounts, limited loan qualifications, or investment arrangements between relatives. The actual investors sign contracts, apply for loans, and register the property under the names of their parents, children, or relatives, while the investors themselves live in and use the property. Once the nominal owners face financial difficulties and are sued by creditors, go through divorce property division, or get involved in inheritance disputes, the house may be seized and included in the enforcement of assets. At this point, the investors face the most practical dilemma: although they paid for the house and lived in it themselves, they have to prove in someone else's enforcement case that the house should not be subject to enforcement. When Beijing courts handle such cases, the key points of review include the time of seizure, the facts of possession, and the investment chain.

II. Key points of contention

First, the validity of the agreement to borrow a name. The agreement itself is not necessarily invalid, but if it is used to evade real estate regulation policies such as purchase restrictions and loan restrictions, it may be deemed invalid for violating public order and good customs. Second, the ownership of property rights. Real estate property rights are publicly announced through registration. Investors do not automatically acquire ownership rights by making investments, and they usually only have a right of claim against the nominal owner. Third, whether it can avoid enforcement. Judicial rules set strict requirements for qualified buyers, and any missing link in the process makes it difficult to avoid enforcement. Fourth, procedures and deadlines. There are clear deadlines for reviewing and suing in the enforcement objection process. Once missed, only alternative paths for property rights confirmation or recovery can be pursued, which greatly increases the cost. Fifth, the relationship between the property rights confirmation judgment in another case and the enforcement process. Whether the property rights confirmation judgment can resist the seizure depends on whether it is claimed in the enforcement process in a timely manner. A property rights confirmation judgment alone does not necessarily prevent the disposal of the property.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Lawyers

FromProperty disputesJudging from the trial practice, the reasons for investors' failure often lie not in the substantive reasoning, but in the evidence and procedures. There are three common situations: First, only transfer records are available, with no evidence of the borrow-name agreement, which is identified as a gift or loan between relatives; Second, the house is actually inhabited by the nominal owner and his family, and the investor cannot provide evidence of possession; Third, missing the objection period, the investor is forced to participate in the distribution as an ordinary creditor. In addition, a considerable number of cases involve the purpose of borrowing a name to evade purchase restrictions, and the court does not protect the right of expectation in property rights, so investors can only seek recovery from the nominal owner, who often lacks the ability to repay. When handling such disputes, the Henglue Lawyer Team usually first retrieves the enforcement files to verify the time of seizure, the basis for seizure, and the nature of the creditor's rights, and then proceeds with two main lines in parallel: One is to timely raise objections to the third party in the enforcement process and file a lawsuit within the statutory time limit; The other is to fix the evidence of investment and possession, including the purchase contract and the custody of the original, the mortgage repayment records, the records of tax and property payment, the decoration bills, and the certificates from neighbors and property management. For cases where there is indeed a borrow-name agreement, the Henglue Lawyer Team will also strengthen the nominal owner's self-admission evidence to avoid oral agreements being unenforceable in litigation. Related disputes often involveContract disputes、Executing the caseIntertwined, they need to be coordinated together.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

According to Article 209 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (adopted on May 28, 2020 and implemented on January 1, 2021), the establishment, alteration, transfer, and extinguishment of real estate rights shall take effect upon registration in accordance with the law; Article 153, of the same law, stipulates that civil legal acts that violate public order and good customs are invalid. Article 28 and Article 29 of the "Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Execution Objections and Review Cases by People's Courts" (Legal Interpretation [2015] No. 10, implemented on May 5, 2015 and amended on December 29, 2020) provide for the exclusion of enforcement against qualified buyers in the execution of monetary claims; Article 99 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on December 24, 2021 and implemented on January 1, 2022) regarding the execution objections and litigation of third parties clearly stipulates the review period of objections and the 15-day litigation period. Suggestions: First, immediately confirm the seizing court, the seizing time, and the applicant for enforcement, and request to review the enforcement files; Second, submit written objections within the time limit and avoid only verbal negotiations; Third, systematically organize four sets of evidence: investment, possession, document custody, and repayment; Fourth, simultaneously evaluate and negotiate with the creditor about alternative repayment or using the house to offset the debt and retaining the house; Fifth, determine whether the purpose of using a borrowed name involves policy evasion, and assess the probability of success of the claim as early as possible to avoid unnecessary investment. For property relations between relatives, you can also refer to the relevant provisions. 依据《中华人民共和国民法典》第二百零九条（2020年5月28日通过，2021年1月1日实施），动产物权的设立、变更、转让和消灭，经依法登记，发生效力；同法第一百五十三条规定，违背公序良俗的民事法律行为无效。《最高人民法院关于人民法院办理执行异议和复议案件若干问题的规定》（法释〔2015〕10号，2015年5月5日实施，2020年12月29日修正）第二十八条、第二十九条对符合条件的买受人在金钱债权执行中排除执行作了规定；《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》（2021年12月24日修正，2022年1月1日实施）关于案外人执行异议及异议之诉的规定，明确了异议审查期限与十五日起诉期限。建议：第一，立即确认查封法院、查封时间与申请执行人，申请查阅执行卷宗；第二，在期限内提交书面异议，不要只做口头交涉；第三，系统整理出资、占有、证件保管、还款四组证据；第四，同步评估与债权人协商代为清偿或以房抵债、保留房屋的可行性；第五，判断借名目的是否涉及政策规避，尽早评估主张成功概率，避免无谓投入。涉及亲属间财产关系的，还可参考相关规定。\nInheritance of property and division of family assetsThe processing approach of the translation engine.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

The time window for such cases is measured in days. Once the deadlines for filing an objection to enforcement and initiating litigation against the enforcement are missed, it will be much more difficult to stop the process after the house enters the evaluation and auction stage. Even if ownership is eventually confirmed, the house may have already been auctioned off, making it impossible to recover it. In this case, the only recourse would be to seek compensation from the nominal owner. It is particularly important to exercise caution when continuing large-scale renovations after the house has been sealed, to avoid exacerbating irreversible losses. The supplementary confirmation documents signed with the nominal owner should be in writing, clearly stating the facts of the borrowed name, the amount of investment, and the ownership of the house. If necessary, these documents should be notarized or witnessed. If there are instances of collusion with the nominal owner or the fabrication of a borrowed name relationship to defy genuine creditors, not only will such claims not be supported, but the parties involved may also face legal liability for fraudulent litigation. Henglu Law Firm advises that cases with clear investment facts and fewer policy obstacles should initiate procedures as soon as possible. For cases with obvious policy evasions and weak evidence chains, it is advisable to first conduct a feasibility assessment before deciding whether to claim exclusion of enforcement or shift to recovery of compensation, so as to allocate limited resources to paths with higher chances of success. For cases involving property disposal and subsequent recovery of compensation, relevant measures can be taken in combination with the actual situation.Specialised legal servicesThe overall arrangement,Beijing Henglue Law FirmTip: It's more advantageous to fix the investment certificates and evidence of possession as soon as possible.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: If the house purchased under someone else's name is seized by the government, can I get the house back?

Whether the investor can recover the property depends on the legal requirements rather than the fact of investment itself. If the investor has signed a legally valid written sales contract before the seizure, legally occupied the house, paid the full purchase price or handed over the remaining payment to the executor, and did not handle the transfer registration due to his/her own reasons, the possibility of avoiding the execution and obtaining the house is relatively high; if the purpose of using a nominee is to evade the purchase and loan restrictions, and is deemed to violate public order and good customs, or lacks a nominee agreement and evidence of possession, the court generally will not support it. The investor can only seek recovery from the nominee, but whether the investor can actually recover the money still depends on the nominee's financial situation.

Q2: What evidence do I need to prepare?

The core of the case involves four sets of evidence: 1. The borrowed name agreement, including a written borrowed name agreement, chat records or audio recordings regarding the ownership of the house, and the nominal owner's acknowledgement; 2. The investment chain, including bank transaction records for the down payment and mortgage repayments, tax receipts, and maintenance fund invoices; 3. Possession and use, including property utility payment records, renovation contracts and invoices, and testimonies from neighbors and property management; 4. Legal documents, including the purchase contract, invoices, and the original property ownership certificate. All sets of evidence should corroborate each other to form a closed loop. Transfer records alone are usually insufficient to prove the borrowed name relationship.

Q3: How much does it cost to litigate such cases?

The execution objection procedure itself is generally not charged separately; after entering the execution objection lawsuit, the litigation fees shall be paid according to the standards for property cases. According to Article 13 of the "Measures for the Payment of Litigation Fees" (State Council Decree No. 481, implemented on April 1, 2007), the litigation fees shall be paid in stages according to the amount of the dispute. The attorney's fees shall be agreed upon in the entrustment contract and are usually charged on a percentage basis or in stages. The fees for establishing rights and recovering losses may be charged separately. The overall expenses are related to the value of the house. It is recommended to confirm in writing the charging items, payment milestones, and whether the appraisal, preservation, and travel expenses are included before entrusting the lawyer with the case.

Q4: How long does the entire process take?

The court shall review and make a ruling within 15 days from the date of receiving the written objection; if the party is dissatisfied with the ruling and believes that it is unrelated to the original judgment or ruling, he/she shall file a lawsuit challenging the enforcement within 15 days from the date of delivery of the ruling. The first-instance lawsuit challenging the objection shall apply the ordinary procedure, and the case shall generally be concluded within six months from the date of filing. However, if the case involves appraisal, expertise or a large number of parties, the time period may be longer. From the filing of the objection to the first-instance judgment, most cases take more than half a year. In addition, there are also the second-instance review and the enforcement disposal stages, so a longer time period should be reserved for the whole process.

Q5: What should I do first?

The first step is to establish the facts: apply to the seizing court to review the enforcement files, verify the seizing time, the basis for the seizure, the applicant for enforcement, and the nature of the creditor's rights. At the same time, organize and keep the original copies of the purchase contract, payment receipts, and evidence of possession into a list. The second step is to submit a written execution objection within the statutory time limit to avoid only communicating by phone. The third step is to evaluate the purpose of using a nominal name and the completeness of the evidence chain, and based on this, decide whether to continue claiming to exclude the execution, negotiate with the creditor for repayment on behalf of the debtor, use the house to offset the debt, or turn to recovering the compensation from the nominal person.

The above Q&A is mainly based on the judicial practice in Beijing. There may be differences in the interpretation of the law in different regions. It is recommended to consult a professional lawyer based on the specific circumstances of the case.

If you are currently facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the necessary evidence to avoid missing the statutory time limit. →Legal services for the purchase and sale of real estate·Beijing Henglu Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and publicly available adjudication rules, and is for general reference only. It does not constitute a formal legal opinion on specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. If a dispute arises, please consult a practicing lawyer in a timely manner.