Public negligence led to property being fraudulently claimed, Zhiming lawyers repeatedly fought for rights and won a complete victory

[Lead Attorney: Zhiming Law; Paralegal: Wei Lin]

In 1991, my elder brother Chen Da, who had moved to Hong Kong, obtained a piece of construction land in a certain district of Shenzhen and built a building on it. Subsequently, Chen Da entrusted the management of this property to his younger brother Chen Xiao, who lived permanently on the mainland. By 2009, Chen Xiao privately forged a property transfer agreement stating that "Chen Da had gifted the house to him," and then claimed to the Historical Legacy Housing Leadership Group under the district management committee that the house belonged to him, applying for confirmation and registration of ownership. Although the forged agreement was extremely crude, the Historical Legacy Housing Leadership Group failed to notice it and mistakenly registered the property under Chen Xiao's name. It was not until 2013, when the truth came to light, that an outraged Chen Da entrusted Zhiming, the director of Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm, to sue his younger brother Chen Xiao in court. Under Zhiming's questioning, Chen Xiao's defense in court was riddled with holes, and his psychological defenses completely collapsed. Ultimately, the court ruled on the spot that the transfer agreement was forged and declared it invalid.

However, for reasons unknown, the district management committee still refused to correct its erroneous property rights registration after learning of the above judgment. To this end, the elder brother Chen Da continued to entrust Zhiming lawyers to file an administrative lawsuit, suing the district management committee's wrongful actions in the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court. During the administrative trial, the defendant district management committee argued in its defense: "This property rights registration was specifically carried out by the 'Leading Group for Handling Historical Private Houses,' and the district management committee did not actually participate, so it should not be the defendant in this case." It further argued: "The administrative act being sued was procedurally lawful. Even if an infringement resulted, it was caused by the personal actions of the plaintiff's younger brother Chen Xiao, and has no relation to the district management committee or the Leading Group for Handling Historical Private Houses. Therefore, the plaintiff should seek compensation for his losses from his younger brother Chen Xiao."

In response, Attorney Zhiming, with the assistance of his colleague Liu Jianhua and assistant Wei Lin, put forward three points of representation to refute the defense of the defendant, the District Management Committee. First, according to the "Shenzhen Special Economic Zone Regulations on Handling Historical Legacy Houses," the District Management Committee has been designated as the authoritative body responsible for uniformly managing issues related to historical legacy private houses within its jurisdiction. Although the "Historical Legacy Private Houses Leading Group" is the actual operational unit, its enforcement authority derives from the authorization and delegation of the District Management Committee. Moreover, this group is a temporary organization and lacks the capacity to independently bear legal liability. Therefore, naming the District Management Committee as the defendant in this case complies with the requirements of the "Administrative Procedure Law." Second, under Article 19 of the "District Implementation Measures for Handling Historical Legacy Houses," when the District Management Committee processes applications for transferred properties, it is required to review the "Letter of Commitment on Interest Relations" jointly issued by the parties involved, interested parties, and the neighborhood committee. However, the District Management Committee neglected this procedure and merely gave a cursory glance at the "Property Transfer Agreement" forged by the younger brother, Chen Xiao, before proceeding with the rights confirmation registration. This constitutes a serious dereliction of duty and cannot be excused. Finally, after the District Management Committee became aware of the erroneous rights confirmation registration, it resorted to various denials and refused to rectify the mistake, which is an act of "persisting in the original error with a new error." In summary, the rights confirmation registration conducted by the District Management Committee constitutes an erroneous administrative act and should be revoked.

In the end, the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court upheld all the arguments presented by Zhiming lawyers, ruling to revoke the district management committee's property rights registration for the younger brother, Chen Xiao. This allowed the elder brother, Chen Da, to reapply and obtain the property rights registration he was entitled to. The series of lawsuits spanned nearly a year and a half, going through both civil and administrative stages, ultimately concluding with a complete victory for Chen Da. (The surnames mentioned above are randomly selected.)