Brief facts of the case

李某與楊某曾系夫妻關係，二人於2003年登記結婚，於2024年7月經法院判決准予離婚。陳某系楊某的親戚。案涉房屋系楊某與李某婚後購買，登記在楊某名下。2023年3月，李某與楊某感情不和分居鬧離婚，在二人婚姻關係存續期間，楊某將案涉房屋過戶至陳某名下。李某至今一直居住在案涉房屋。陳某持不動產權證書以房屋擁有權人名義起訴至法院，要求李某搬離並返還案涉房屋，排除妨礙。

Heard by the courts

The key to whether Chen has the right to request the return of the house lies in whether he is the actual owner of the house involved in the case.

陳某主張在楊某處買受案涉房屋，其僅提交不動產權屬證書，本案需審查陳某與楊某之間買賣關係存在與否。陳某主張50萬元價格購買案涉房屋，其明確表示無法提供買賣合同，陳述50萬元房款支付17萬元現金，其餘房款由債務抵頂。在法院詢問17萬元現金支付地點、款項來源，抵頂房款債務由來，陳某均無法作出合理解釋。

Chen was unable to submit the purchase contract and the payment could not be reasonably explained, which was inconsistent with the normal house sale and purchase transaction. In addition, there was a kinship between Chen and Yang, and when Yang transferred the house to Chen, it was during the period when Yang and Li were separated and divorced, and the court found that the housing transaction between Chen and Yang was not true. Since there was no real housing transaction between the two, the registration of the transfer of ownership of the house could not produce the effect of a change in property rights, and Chen could not obtain the ownership of the house involved in the case. Because Chen is not the actual owner of the house involved in the case, he has no right to require Li to vacate and return the house involved in the case. After the judge undertaking the case explained the facts of the case and relevant legal provisions to Chen, Chen voluntarily withdrew the lawsuit.

The judge said

Article 235 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China stipulates that if a person has no right to occupy immovable or movable property, the right holder may request the return of the original property. The subject of the dispute over the return of the original property shall be the owner of the property right. The certificate of ownership of immovable property is only a certificate of right issued by the immovable property registration authority, which is derived from the immovable property register and has preliminary probative effect, but it only has the presumptive effect of immovable property rights, and cannot directly determine the existence of substantive ownership. Even if the transfer of ownership is registered, the registrant does not automatically enjoy ownership. For the true ownership of the immovable property, it is necessary to examine the reason for the registration of the immovable property. In the case of the acquisition of immovable property rights in the case of a transactional relationship, it is necessary to examine whether the seller has the right to dispose of it, whether there is a legal and valid sales contract, whether the real estate has been registered for transfer, and if the above conditions are met, the buyer can obtain the ownership of the real estate. Among the above three conditions, if the seller has no right to dispose of the property, if the buyer acquires the property in good faith, it can still obtain the ownership of the house. If there is no legal and effective sales relationship between the two parties, no transfer registration has been completed, and neither of the two conditions is met, the buyer has no right to acquire ownership. For example, in this case, Yang and Chen had no real transaction relationship, and only handled the transfer registration, and Chen could not obtain the ownership of the house involved in the case. Chen is not the owner and has no right to demand that Li return the house.

Links to the law

Article 235 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of ChinaIf there is no right to occupy the immovable or movable property, the right holder may request the return of the original property.

Source: China Popular Law