The first case applying the Property Law to adjudicate a property possession infringement case was won after a reversal of defeat.
【Lead Attorney: Zhiming Law Offices】Plaintiff Bai XX v. Defendant Wang X Shi for tortious possession of residential property. The disputed property, located in Longwu New Village, Nantou, is a building of historical illegal construction. The defendant Wang X Shi's possession of the disputed property originates from a "Deed of Gift of House" executed ten years ago and is closely connected to a serious criminal case from over a decade ago. The donor under the original "Deed of Gift of House," Yao XX, was subsequently added as a third party, and the defendant Wang X Shi's daughter, Wang X Fang, was also added as a co-defendant.
The legal relationships involved in this case are therefore intricate and complex, with a large number of historical facts requiring urgent verification, making it a major and difficult case. The defendant, Wang X-shi, was a migrant worker from outside the region. Under extremely passive circumstances in the early stages of responding to the lawsuit, the isolated and helpless defendant sought legal assistance from Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm upon learning of its reputation by word of mouth in April 2008. After the Zhiming lawyer led trainee lawyer Cao Guanghui in carefully studying the case, they decided to defend the weak and uphold their rights. Following a comprehensive analysis and overall planning of the entire case, they made multiple trips to various locations to conduct extensive and persistent investigation and evidence collection efforts. On the day of the court hearing, relying on the large number of key case facts they had obtained and with the assistance of assistant Cao Guanghui, the Zhiming lawyer, by virtue of profound legal expertise, superb courtroom advocacy skills, and extensive experience in handling complex and difficult cases, enabled the client Wang X-shi, as the defendant, to completely seize the initiative and gain a distinct advantage. The entire case handling process was full of twists and turns, and whenever the situation seemed hopeless, they always managed to turn things around. Ultimately, in the face of irrefutable facts and the compelling force of law, the court dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims.
A long-lost smile reappeared on the defendant's face! Recently, after winning the case, the defendant client Wang X Shi specially had two silk banners made and presented them respectively to Lawyer Zhiming, who had defended the rights and cleared the wrongful accusations for him and his daughter, and Lawyer Cao Guanghui, who assisted in handling the case, to express his sincere gratitude and admiration.
Agent's Statement
I. The right of possession is not equivalent to the right of ownership, nor is it equivalent to the possessory power inherent in the right of ownership.
Under Article 71 of the General Principles of the Civil Law: "Property ownership refers to the right of the owner to lawfully possess, use, benefit from, and dispose of his own property"; Article 39 of the Property Law: "The owner of a real property or movable property shall have the right to possess, use, benefit from, and dispose of his own real property or movable property in accordance with law." It can be seen that ownership includes four powers: possession, use, benefit, and disposal. Among them, the power of possession is the manifestation of the owner directly exercising ownership. Only by enjoying ownership in accordance with law can one possess all property or authorize others to possess it. Possession as provided in Chapter 19 of the Property Law refers to the state in which the possessor has de facto control and management over a thing, and the right of possession is the right enjoyed by the possessor based on the fact of possession.
Second, the plaintiff in this case has no facts of possessing the disputed house, and the claims in the complaint that "the right of possession was infringed" and "the source of the right of possession is lawful and legitimate" are pure nonsense.
The plaintiff has no evidence whatsoever proving that they possess and reside in the disputed house, Room xxx, Building xx, Longwu New Village. On the contrary, the partial receipts for water, electricity, telephone, and garbage disposal fees (2000-2008) paid in connection with the possession and use of the house, as provided by the defendant, together with the certificate of residence issued by the Daxin Neighborhood Committee where the disputed house is located, sufficiently prove the fact that the defendant resides in and uses the disputed house. The party lawfully entitled to the right of possession is the defendant, not the plaintiff.
Even setting aside the fact that the authenticity of the "fund-raising contract," "payment receipt," and "certificate" submitted by the plaintiff is called into question due to their form and content contradicting government archives and evidence obtained by the court, the alleged "construction conduct" of the plaintiff, even if it existed, was illegal (the plaintiff, as the fund-raising party, was not a villager of this village, and Tianxia Enterprise Company was not qualified to engage in real estate development). This is made perfectly clear by the reply letter from the "Two Regulations Office" of Nanshan District, Shenzhen, to the court and the "Receipt for Acceptance of Application for Handling Historical Legacy Illegal Private Houses" submitted by the plaintiff itself. According to Article 30 of the Property Law, only where property rights are established through legal factual acts such as construction do they take effect upon the completion of the factual act. That is to say, even if the plaintiff's alleged fund-raising and house-building conduct existed, it was illegal and could not serve as a basis for acquiring property rights. In fact, it has not yet been confirmed by the court. The plaintiff's assertion that its "source of possession is legitimate and lawful" is clearly fabricated.
3. The defendant Wang xx's possession of the disputed house originates from the entrustment of his daughter Wang xx, constituting authorized and lawful possession.
Article 241 of the Property Law: "Possession arising from contractual relationships and other sources, with respect to the use of immovable or movable property, benefits, liability for breach of contract, etc., shall be governed by the contract." The defendant, Wang Zishi, exercised his right of possession precisely in accordance with the provisions of the commission contract, which fully complies with legal requirements. Moreover, the disputed house that Wang xx entrusted his father, Wang xx, to reside in and manage came from the so-called "gift" of the third party, Yao xx, and Yao xx is the father-in-law of the plaintiff, Bai xx, in this case. According to Article 106 of the Property Law, Wang xx has already acquired ownership of the disputed house in good faith. As for the ownership interests between the third party, Yao xx, and the plaintiff, Bai xx, they do not affect Wang xx's ownership of the house. A specific analysis is as follows:
Article 106 of the Property Law: "Where a person without the right of disposition transfers real or movable property to a transferee, the owner has the right to recover the property; except as otherwise provided by law, the transferee acquires ownership of the real or movable property if the following circumstances are met: (1) the transferee is bona fide at the time of the transfer of the real or movable property; (2) the transfer is made at a reasonable price; and (3) the real or movable property transferred has been registered as required by law, or, where registration is not required, has been delivered to the transferee."
First, the Deed of Gift of the House, the Disability Certificate, the testimony of witness Wang X, and the case file of Case No. (1995) Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court Criminal Division II Initial No. 376 indicate that Wang XX came to Shenzhen from his hometown in Sichuan to work at the end of 1994, and shortly after being employed by the third party Yao XX in early 1995, he was severely wounded by the criminal Zhou XX while protecting the property of his employer Yao XX, and thereafter went everywhere seeking medical treatment. Meanwhile, due to historical reasons such as the disputed house being an illegal private house, when Wang XX accepted the disputed house as a donee, it was obviously impossible for him to have known whether Yao XX had the right to dispose of the disputed house; that is to say, the donee Wang XX was in good faith when he accepted the disputed house.
Secondly, on the face of the House Gift Deed, the disputed house accepted by Wang xx was a "gratuitous gift" from the third party Yao xx. Looking at the whole context of this case, it is not difficult to see that Wang xx acquired the disputed house at the cost of suffering severe injuries and bearing huge medical expenses, while the third party Yao xx transferred the disputed house as a helpless measure to legally bear the employer's compensation liability. It can thus be seen that Wang xx paid reasonable consideration when accepting the disputed house.
Finally, as the disputed house is an illegal private residence left over from history and cannot undergo property rights registration, the transferee Wang xx likewise cannot register property rights. However, the disputed house has been actually delivered to the transferee, and the transferee Wang xx and his agent Wang xx have openly, peacefully, and continuously possessed and used the transferred house for over ten years. Considering the actual circumstances of this case, Wang xx's acceptance of the disputed house also satisfies the third condition of bona fide acquisition.
In summary, the plaintiff's claims lack factual and legal basis and constitute pure frivolous litigation. The court is requested to reject all of the plaintiff's claims in accordance with the law.
