In marital and family disputes, the determination of ownership of property purchased with parental funds has always been the core point of contention in the division of property. Many parties believe that if a property is purchased after marriage and registered in the name of one of their children, it must be personal property; there are also views that as long as it is acquired during the marriage, it is universally considered as the joint property of the couple. Both of these understandings contain biases and require a comprehensive judgment based on the method of funding and the expression of intent.

  According to Article 1063, Paragraph (3) of the Civil Code, property that is determined to belong exclusively to one party by will or gift agreement is the personal property of that party. If one parent fully funds the purchase of a property after marriage and registers the title in the name of their child alone, this act itself is usually considered in judicial practice as the parents indicating through their actions that "the gift agreement determines that the property belongs exclusively to one party," thus the immovable property belongs to the personal property of the child of the funder.

  It should be particularly pointed out that Article 29, Paragraph 2 of the "Interpretation (I) of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Marriage and Family Article of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China" (hereinafter referred to as the "Interpretation of the Marriage and Family Article") promulgated in 2021, only makes a general principle that if parents fund the purchase of a house for both parties after marriage without an agreement or an unclear agreement, it is considered a gift to both parties. This provision does not retain the presumptive rule of Article 7 of the "Interpretation (III) of the Marriage Law" regarding "fully funded purchase and registered in the name of one's own child." However, in the current judicial practice, most courts still follow this legal principle, considering that: when parents fully fund the purchase and register the property rights in the name of their own child, it has fully revealed the true intent of the gift being directed only at their own child, which meets the requirements of Article 1063 of the Civil Code, and is therefore identified as personal property. This is the mainstream trend of judgment in practice, but it is not absolutely uncontested.

  To avoid difficulties in evidence presentation, it is necessary to construct a complete evidence chain, with a minimum requirement of preserving: full transfer receipts from the parent's bank account to the seller, developer, or child's account; the purchase contract and invoice for the purchase price; and the property registration certificate showing that only the child is the owner of the property.

  If the parents only pay the down payment and the loan is repaid with the joint property of the couple after marriage, the ownership of the house cannot be directly identified as personal property. Even if the title is registered in the name of one party, the joint repayment portion of the loan and the corresponding increase in the value of the house still belong to the joint property of the couple, and the party with the title should make a price compensation to the other party at the time of divorce.

  The optimal practical strategy is for the parents and children to sign a written "Gift Agreement," clearly stating that "the purchase fund and the purchased house are only gifted to the child and have nothing to do with the spouse, and do not constitute joint property of the couple." If conditions permit, notarization can further enhance the evidence, eliminating the possibility of the other party arguing that "they were unaware of the gift and it was a gift to both parties."

  Additionally, if both parents of the couple jointly fund the purchase of a house, even if it is registered in the name of one child, and there are no other agreements, it is generally considered in practice as a joint tenancy, with both parties enjoying property shares according to the proportion of their parents' contributions, and cannot be simply presumed to be jointly owned by the couple. This point also concerns major property arrangements within the family and should not be overlooked.