Shenzhen Professional Marriage and Family Lawyer Tang Yunhong Explains Cases: Core Legal Points and Rights-Protection Guiding Principles in the Case of Divorce of Homestead Houses in Cohabitation

Daohua Family Law and Matrimonial Lawyers Team

Marriage and Family Affairs Dispute (Mediation/Litigation) Practical Expert

Ten years of focus on; marriage and family legal services for bulk property matters

Guangdong Dao Hua Law Firm, Tang Yunhong, Dao Hua Marriage and Family Law Team, Shenzhen's renowned divorce litigation lawyer, professional inheritance and succession dispute lawyer, Guangdong and Shenzhen's top ten marriage and family law firms, specializing in handling: major and 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, legal inheritance disputes, land and property inheritance, rural house demolition inheritance, will drafting, will validity determination, etc. Non-litigation and disputes. Service areas: Futian, Nanshan, Luohu, Longgang, Bao'an, Longhua, Guangming, Pingshan, Dapeng, Yantian.

Introduction:Under the background of accelerated urban and rural reconstruction in the city villages of Guangzhou (especially Haizhu District), the division of homestead houses has become a frequent type of property dispute in cohabitation relationships. The Marriage and Family Law Team of Guangdong Dao Hua Law Firm has handled many similar cases and found that the parties generally have problems such as "weak awareness of evidence preservation" and "misconceptions about legal rules." This article analyzes the core legal points such as the identification of investment in non-marital cohabitation, the construction of evidence chain of cohabitation relationships, and the priority of registration of homestead use rights, combining the second-instance case of Gouo and Wei in Haizhu District, Guangzhou, to provide practical guidance for parties encountering similar disputes.

One, Case Review

1. Details of the parties' marriage and cohabitation claims: Guo某 married a case outsider Yuan某 and registered their marriage in ×× year, and were divorced by mediation on April 23, 1992; Wei某 married a case outsider Zhong某 in ×× year, and were divorced by mediation on October 19, 2000, and later registered their marriage with Yang某 on ×× month ×× day in 2001, and the marriage has lasted until now. Guo某 claimed that he cohabited with Wei某 from 1990 to December 2014, invested in the construction of the residential house on the involved homestead in 2001, reported Wei某 missing as a "husband" in December 2014, and submitted a rental contract with a case outsider to claim the management of the house; Wei某 denied cohabitation, claiming that he had been living in the involved house with Yang某 since 2001, left in 2015 due to threats from Guo某's side, and submitted proof of payment for municipal supporting fees, construction fees, etc. from 1995-1996, as well as payment records for utilities and rental house taxes from 2003-2014, claiming that he was the actual user and manager of the house.

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

The court found that:

1. The first-instance court found: confirmed that the registration of the residential land use right involved is inUnder Wei's name, Guo submitted the Huaxia Securities Co., Ltd. margin withdrawal certificate (withdrawals of 20,000 yuan and 14,000 yuan respectively in April and September 2000), which can only prove the withdrawal facts, but cannot confirm the use for building a house; The statement "Wei is the husband" in Guo's police report cannot be used as valid evidence of cohabitation relationship because Wei was already legally married at the time; The marriage registration materials submitted by Wei, as well as Yang's "Marriage Status Statement" and "Marriage Certificate," can prove the duration of her two legal marriages; The payment receipts submitted by Wei can prove that she has fulfilled the obligation to pay relevant fees for the case-related house. At the same time, it is found that Guo applied to withdraw the lawsuit request for "having the right to 50% of the demolition and relocation compensation" in the first instance.

2. The second-instance court found that neither party submitted new evidence and confirmed the facts as determined by the first-instance court. Further review of the "Evidence" submitted by Guo某 (written by Wei某's son Wei某 Hua) revealed a formal defect of the ID number being only 16 digits, and the content did not match Wei某's marital status, the time of building the house (in conflict with Wei某's reported construction payment time), and the sale of the house (Wei某 did not sell the house), making it impossible to confirm its authenticity; the "Witness Testimony" and "Neighborhood Statement" were both unilateral statements, with the witnesses not appearing in court, which did not meet the requirements for evidence form and could not be used as a basis for determining the case.

III. Core of the Case: Dispute over Partition of Joint Tenancy Arising from the Homestead House in Haizhu District, Guangzhou

(1) Core claims and focal points 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 demolition compensation in the first instance).

- Defendant Wei: Denies the cohabitation relationship, claims that the house involved was built with personal funds, and is the registered user of the residential land, submitting proof of construction fees, utility bills, rental house tax payments, etc. to substantiate the actual management and use facts.

- Core dispute:1. Does either party have a legally valid cohabitation relationship? 2. Does Guo某 have a genuine investment in the house involved in the case? 3. Can the non-registered land use right holder claim for property division?

(2) The court shall investigate and ascertain the key issues.

1. Ownership basis: The residential land use right involved is registered in the name of Wei Mou (certificate issued in 1996), which conforms to the "registration priority" principle in the judicial practice of property division for residential land use right 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" was excluded due to the witness not appearing in court, and the evidence chain of the cohabitation relationship was broken.

3. Relationship Identification: Guo某 claims that during the cohabitation period, both parties had legitimate marriages with third parties, which constitutes an improper relationship. The law does not recognize their joint ownership claims based on this relationship.

(3) Judgment result

1. First-instance judgment result: The court rejected all of Guo's claims (i.e., rejected the request for "confirming an equal 50% ownership share of the house involved" as Guo has withdrawn the related request for relocation compensation); the filing fee for the first-instance case is 13,800 yuan, to be borne by Guo.

Judgment Reason: Guo failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the cohabitation relationship with Wei, and both parties were mostly in legal marriages with third parties during the claimed cohabitation period. Even if there was cohabitation, it would be an improper relationship that violates public order and good customs; Guo could not prove that he invested in the relevant house, and he had no property right basis for the residential land use rights under Wei's name. Even if there was investment, it would not constitute a change in property rights, so his property claim is not supported.

2. Judgment result of the second-instance trial: The appeal is dismissed, and the original judgment is upheld; the filing fee for the second-instance case is 13,800 yuan, to be borne by Guo某; this judgment is the final judgment.

Judgment reasons: The evidence submitted by Guo某, such as the "Proof" and "Witness Testimony", cannot form a chain of evidence, and cannot prove the establishment of a cohabitation relationship. The claim of a legitimate marriage during the cohabitation period is not recognized. The claim for investment lacks direct evidence, and the withdrawal records are not related to the construction of the house. The act of collecting rent cannot prove joint ownership. As the registrant of the residential land use right, Wei某 has evidence supporting ownership, such as payment records and ownership proof, so the first-instance judgment is upheld.

Four, Key Legal Points of Joint Property Division Disputes in Guangzhou Area

(1) Homestead house division: registration priority, capital contribution requires "threefold authentication"

Pursuant to Article 362 of the Civil Code and the judicial practice in the Guangzhou area, the ownership identification of homestead houses follows the principle of "registration," that is, the registrant of the homestead use right is prioritized in being identified as the owner of the house. If the non-registered party claims the division of property rights, it must meet the following conditions:

1. There is an agreement for joint construction of a building (such as a written agreement, communication records).

2. There is direct evidence of capital contribution (transfer notes with the remark "building construction", invoices for the purchase of building materials, workers' receipts, and testimonies, etc.).

3. The registrant explicitly acknowledges joint ownership (such as property confirmation documents, notarized documents).

If only proof of capital contribution is provided, it is not possible to claim the division of property rights; one can only demand the return of the capital contribution and interest (with a nature of a claim), which is a common judicial logic in the disputes over capital contribution to courtyard house construction in Haizhu District.

(2) Recognition of cohabitation relationship: evidence must reach the standard of “high probability,” and a single piece of evidence is invalid.

In the cohabitation property division disputes in Guangzhou, the proof of the cohabitation relationship needs to form a complete evidence chain; individual evidence is difficult to be accepted by the court.

- Substantial evidenceJoint rental agreement, joint account transaction records, community/property residence certificate, testimony from relatives and friends, joint consumption proof (such as home appliance purchase records, property fee payment records).

Invalid/defective evidenceSingle-party written statements, testimony of non-appearing witnesses, evidence materials with contradictory content, unrelated withdrawal records (such as the evidence situation of Guo in this case).

Special reminder:If it is claimed that there was a legitimate marriage for one or both parties during the cohabitation period, it falls under the category of improper relationship property division. Even if the fact of cohabitation is established, it is not possible to obtain a joint ownership recognition based on that relationship; one can only claim a debt based on the legitimate investment.

(3) Evidence of capital contribution: Withdrawal records ≠ capital contribution for building construction, need to lock in "capital flow."

The identification of contributions in cohabitation without marriage is the core difficulty in cohabitation property division disputes. The marriage and family law team of Guangdong Dao Hua Law Firm, with over 500 cases handled, summarizes the "three elements of contribution evidence":

1. Source of funds:Bank transfer records, withdrawal vouchers (with remarks on purpose or subsequent flow evidence).

2. Purpose of funds:Materials supplier's transfer records, receipt for construction workers (to be signed and thumbprinted), decoration contract and payment vouchers.

3. Actual Participation:Construction process communication records (WeChat/Text Message), worker employment contract, joint decision certificate for house rental/management.

Lack of any element may lead to the non-recognition of the investment claim, which is also the key reason for the failure of Guo in this case to provide evidence of his investment in building the house.

V. Guangdong Avenue Huatian Law Firm Joint Property Protection Practical Guide (Avoiding Pitfalls + Rights Protection)

(1) Precautionary measures: Sign a "Living Together Property Agreement" to clarify property boundaries.

This is the most effective risk prevention measure in the division of cohabitation property. The "Cohabitation Property Agreement" drafted by the Guangdong Dao Hua Law Firm will focus on stipulating:

Property ownership:Clarify the investment ratios and ownership of assets such as homestead houses, real estate, and savings, especially for assets registered in one party's name, it is necessary to specify the other party's "hidden ownership" or conditions for returning the investment.

- Splitting rules:When terminating the cohabitation relationship by agreement, the standard for asset valuation compensation and the method of distribution for the increased value part.

- Burden of proofClearly specify the types of evidence required when one party claims to have made an investment (such as bank transfer records + written confirmation), to avoid subsequent disputes over evidence.

For professional document drafting, please contact Dao Hua Law Firm for cohabitation property agreement drafting services, providing customized solutions for the division of cohabitation property in Guangzhou.

(2) During the process: evidence preservation "three-step approach," to avoid the situation where there is no way to provide evidence

1. Capital retention:All funding for building and purchasing houses should be prioritized through bank transfers, with remarks such as "Jointly Built House" and "For House Purchase" included. Cash funding requires the payee to provide a receipt with a signed and fingerprinted signature (with a copy of the ID card attached).

2. Behavior retention:Keep records of communication during the construction or renovation process, contact information of workers, procurement contracts and invoices, and regularly take photos of the house construction or use (with date markings).

3. Right confirmation:If the assets are registered in one party's name, the other party is required to provide a "Confirmation of Property Co-ownership," clearly stating the investment ratio and nature of co-ownership, and notarization may be required if necessary.

(Later: Remedial measures when evidence is insufficient)

If a dispute has occurred and evidence is weak, the following measures can be taken to remedy the situation:

1. Supplement evidence:Communicate with the other party and record the conversation (clearly stating the cohabitation facts and investment situation), contact the construction workers/material suppliers for testimonies (which require appearance in court), and retrieve community residence records.

2. Change Demand:If it cannot be proven that the property rights are jointly owned, the claim can be changed to "return of the capital contribution and interest," reducing the threshold for evidence.

3. Professional Assistance:Entrust the Dohua cohabitation property division lawyer and Dohua residential land dispute lawyer to handle the matter, utilizing professional experience to organize the evidence chain and formulate the optimal litigation strategy.

Chapter Six: The Tang Code's Interpretation

This case, as a typical unsuccessful case of property division during cohabitation in Guangzhou, holds the core lesson that "evidence is king" is an eternal principle of judgment. Whether it is the division of courtyard house property or a common cohabitation property dispute, the parties must establish an awareness of evidence preservation in advance and clarify the boundaries of legal rules.

Guangdong Dao Hua Law Firm's marriage and family team has been dedicated to the field of marriage and family law for 10 years, focusing on handling complex cases such as the division of courtyard houses in Haizhu District, Guangzhou, disputes over cohabitation property division, and division of high-net-worth assets. With the core advantages of "evidence chain construction + regional judicial practice adaptation," the team has successfully helped hundreds of parties to successfully safeguard their rights.

If you are facing issues such as cohabitation property division, rural residential land house division, and disputes over investment in non-marital cohabitation, you can contact the marriage and family law team of Guangdong Daohua Law Firm to obtain free case evaluation and rights protection plans, to avoid damage to your legitimate rights and interests due to insufficient evidence or legal cognition bias.

Chapter 7: Index of Relevant Laws and Regulations

《Civil Code of the People's Republic of China

Article 362: The right holder of residential land use rights shall, in accordance with the law, enjoy the rights to occupy and use collectively-owned land, and shall have the right to legally use such land to construct residential buildings and their ancillary facilities.

Supreme People's Court Interpretation (II) on the Application of the Marriage and Family Article of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China

In disputes over the division of property in cohabitation cases where both parties are unmarried, if there is an agreement regarding the property acquired during the cohabitation period, it shall be handled according to the agreement; if there is no agreement and the parties fail to reach a consensus through negotiation, the people's court shall handle the matter separately according to the following circumstances:

(1) The salaries, bonuses, remuneration for labor, income from intellectual property rights, properties inherited or gifted individually, as well as the profits from independent production, operation, and investment, shall belong to each party individually.

(2) The property purchased with joint investment, the income from joint production, operation, and investment, as well as other indistinguishable property, shall be divided based on the proportion of each party's investment, taking into account various factors such as the joint living situation, the presence of common children, and the contribution to the property.

The Civil Code of the People's Republic of China

Article 304: The co-owners may negotiate to determine the method of division. If an agreement cannot be reached, the immovable or movable property owned in common may be divided, and the value shall not be reduced by the division. In such cases, the physical property shall be divided. If it is difficult to divide or the division would reduce the value, the proceeds from the valuation, auction, or sale shall be divided.

If the jointly-owned real property or movable property divided among the co-owners has defects, the other co-owners shall bear the loss.
 

Daohua Family Law Firm, ten years focused on major property marriage and family legal services, expert in marriage inheritance and family disputes (mediation/trial), is one of the influential brands in [Shenzhen] for marriage inheritance and wealth management legal services.

The team has handled over 1000 cases related to marriage inheritance, and has extensive experience in dispute resolution fields such as complex marriage and family matters, inheritance disputes, will drafting, and family property distribution. Utilizing local wisdom, the team is skilled in dealing with difficult divorce property division cases involving Shenzhen's small property rights houses, village committee shares, will drafting and notarization, and inheritance disputes, winning unanimous praise from clients.

Adhering to the philosophy of "securing property safety, preventing legal risks, and empowering wealth appreciation," we gather experts from industries such as law, banking, insurance, and finance and taxation, with a wealth of successful cases. We provide a comprehensive package of solutions for high-net-worth individuals (including those from Hong Kong, Macau, and foreign nationals) in marriage, family affairs, and wealth inheritance, to achieve the beautiful vision of risk prevention and control, debt isolation, and family wealth inheritance.

Asset types include: real estate (commercial housing, small property rights housing, land use rights, etc.), various property rights (equity, debt, relocation compensation, copyright, invention patents, etc.).

The team has completed the compilation of "A Collection of Successful Cases of Dao Hua Marriage and Inheritance" and "Legal Practice of Family Wealth Transmission," achieving outstanding achievements in both legal practice and theoretical research.

Statement:The information or articles published on this website are for exchange purposes only. The names of individuals/companies mentioned in this article are pseudonyms, and the amounts/dates of the case information have been processed for confidentiality. The content of the article is created by the author and does not represent legal opinions or suggestions issued by Guangdong Daohua Law Firm or other lawyers. The information contained in this article is provided for general information purposes only, and Guangdong Daohua Law Firm is not responsible for making timely modifications or updates to this article. Decisions made by readers based on all or part of the content of this article and the consequences thereof shall be solely responsible by the person acting. The author and Guangdong Daohua Law Firm shall not be held liable. If any content of these articles is to be reproduced or cited, please indicate the source. If you need legal opinions or legal services, please contact our lawyers.
 

Dao Hua Marriage and Family Law Firm, ten years focused on major property marriage and family legal services, expert in marriage inheritance and family disputes (mediation/trial), is one of the influential brands in [Shenzhen local] marriage inheritance and wealth management legal services.

The team has handled over 1000 cases related to marriage inheritance, and has extensive experience in dispute resolution fields such as complex marriage and family matters, inheritance disputes, will drafting, and family property distribution. Utilizing local wisdom, the team is skilled in dealing with difficult divorce property division cases involving Shenzhen's small property rights houses, village committee shares, will drafting and notarization, and inheritance disputes, winning unanimous praise from clients.

Adhering to the philosophy of "securing property safety, preventing legal risks, and empowering wealth appreciation," we gather experts from industries such as law, banking, insurance, and finance and taxation. With a wealth of successful cases, we provide a comprehensive package of solutions for high-net-worth individuals (including those from Hong Kong, Macau, and foreign nationals) in marriage, family affairs, and wealth inheritance, to achieve the beautiful vision of risk prevention and control, debt isolation, and family wealth inheritance.

Asset types include: real estate (commercial housing, small property rights housing, land use rights, etc.), various property rights (equity, debt, relocation compensation, copyright, invention patents, etc.).

The team has completed the compilation of "A Collection of Successful Cases of Dao Hua Marriage and Inheritance" and "Legal Practice of Family Wealth Transmission," achieving remarkable achievements in both legal practice and theoretical research.

Statement:The information or articles published on this website are for exchange purposes only. The names of individuals/companies mentioned in this article are pseudonyms, and the amounts/dates of case information have been processed for confidentiality. The content of the article is created by the author and does not represent legal opinions or suggestions issued by Guangdong Daohua Law Firm or other lawyers. The information contained in this article is provided for general information purposes only, and Guangdong Daohua Law Firm is not responsible for making timely modifications or updates to this article. Decisions made by readers based on all or part of the content of this article and the consequences arising therefrom are solely the responsibility of the individuals involved. The author and Guangdong Daohua Law Firm assume no responsibility. If any content of these articles is to be reproduced or cited, please indicate the source. If you need legal opinions or legal services, please contact our lawyers.