Dao Hua Marriage and Family Law Firm

Expert in Marriage and Family Disputes (Mediation/Litigation)

Guangdong DaoHua Law Firm, Tang Yunhong Lawyer, DaoHua Marriage and Family Law Team, Shenzhen's famous divorce litigation lawyer, professional inheritance dispute lawyer, Guangdong and Shenzhen's top ten marriage and family law firms, specializing in: large-scale difficult divorce mediation/court litigation, property small property division, will and inheritance disputes, will notarization, divorce property division, post-divorce property disputes, divorce/marital agreement, custody disputes, will inheritance disputes, statutory inheritance disputes, land and property inheritance, rural house demolition inheritance, will drafting, will validity determination, etc. Non-litigation, disputes, etc. Service area: Futian, Nanshan, Luohu, Longgang, Bao'an, Longhua, Guangming, Pingshan, Dapeng, Yantian

1. Case Review

1. Details of the parties' marriage and cohabitation claims: Guo某 in ×× year married to a third party Yuan某, and divorced by mediation on April 23, 1992; Wei某 married a third party Zhong某 in ×× year, and divorced by mediation on October 19, 2000, and then registered to marry Yang某 on ×× month ×× day in 2001, and the marriage has lasted until now. Guo某 claims to have cohabited with Wei某 from 1990 to December 2014, invested in the construction of the involved宅基地 house in 2001, reported Wei某 missing as “husband” in December 2014, and submitted a rental contract with a third party to claim the management of the house; Wei某 denies the cohabitation, claiming to have lived in the involved house with Yang某 since 2001, left in 2015 due to threats from Guo某, and submitted proof of payment for municipal supporting fees, construction fees, etc. from 1995-1996, as well as electricity, water, and rental house tax payment records from 2003-2014, to claim that he is the actual user and manager of the house.

2. Basic information of the involved house: The involved宅基地 is located at No. XXXX7, Haizhu District, Guangzhou City. The "Rural (Township) Homestead Land Use Certificate" shows that the user is Wei某, issued on September 24, 1996, with a homestead area of 48.50 square meters and a building area of 182.40 square meters, a three-and-a-half-story building. Guo某 claims that the house was planned in 2001 and completed and rented in 2003, and Wei某 did not deny the completion and rental time of the house, but claimed that the construction funds and subsequent expenses were all borne by himself.

Secondly, the court finds:

1. The first-instance court finds: The residential land use rights registration in question is confirmed to be under the name of Wei Mou, and the guarantee payment withdrawal vouchers submitted by Guo Mou from the Huaxia Securities Company (withdrawals of 20,000 yuan and 14,000 yuan in April and September 2000 respectively) can only prove the withdrawal facts, but cannot confirm that they were used for building the house; The statement "Wei Mou is the husband" in Guo Mou's police report materials cannot be used as valid evidence of cohabitation relationship because Wei Mou was already legally married at the time; The marriage registration materials submitted by Wei Mou, as well as Yang Mouhui's "Marriage Status Statement" and "Marriage Certificate", can prove the duration of his two legal marriages; The payment receipts submitted by Wei Mou can prove that he has fulfilled the relevant fee payment obligations for the house in question. At the same time, it is found that Guo Mou applied to withdraw the lawsuit request "to enjoy 50% of the demolition and relocation compensation" in the first-instance trial.

2. The second-instance court finds: No new evidence has been submitted by any party, and the facts found by the first-instance court are confirmed. Further review of the "Proof" submitted by Guo Mou (written by Wei Mou, the son of Wei Mou) reveals a formal defect of the ID number being only 16 digits, and the content does not match Wei Mou's marital status, the time of building the house (in conflict with Wei Mou's reported construction and payment time), and the sale of the house (Wei Mou did not sell the house), so the authenticity cannot be confirmed; The "Witness Testimony" and "Neighborhood Statement" are both unilateral statements, the witnesses did not appear in court, and do not meet the requirements of evidence form, and cannot be used as the basis for determining the case.

Three, the Core of the Case: The Dispute over the Partition of Joint Tenancy of a House in Haizhu District, Guangzhou

(I) The Core Demands and Dispute Focus of the Parties

- Plaintiff Guo: Claims non-marital cohabitation with Wei from 1990 to 2014, jointly invested in the construction of the residential house at No. XXXX7, Haizhu District, Guangzhou in 2001, and requests confirmation of a 50% ownership share in the house (withdrawn the claim for compensation for relocation in the first instance).

- Defendant Wei: Denies the cohabitation relationship, claims that the house in question was built with personal funds, and is the registered user of the residential land, submitting proof of payment for construction fees, utilities, and rental house taxes to demonstrate actual management and use.

-  Core Dispute:1. Does there exist a legally valid cohabitation relationship between the two parties? 2. Does Guo have actual investment in the residential land house in question? 3. Can the non-registered user of the residential land claim for property division?

(II) Key Findings of the Court's Trial

1. Ownership Basis: The residential land use rights involved are registered in the name of Wei某 (certificate issued in 1996), which complies with the principle of "registration priority" in the judicial practice of property division among residential land use rights holders in Guangzhou.

2. Evidence Review: The withdrawal records submitted by Guo某 (totaling 34,000 yuan in 2000) cannot prove the relevance to the construction of the house, the "Proof" has flaws in the ID number and contradictory content, the "Witness Testimony" is excluded due to the witness not appearing in court, and the evidence chain of cohabitation is broken.

3. Relationship Identification: During the period of cohabitation claimed by Guo某, both parties had legitimate marriages with third parties, which constitutes an improper relationship, and the law does not recognize the claim for joint ownership of property based on this relationship.

（三）Judgment Result