[Lead Lawyers: Wang Tengfeng, Cao Guanghui] The plaintiff Bai XX sued the defendant Wang X Shi for property possession infringement. The disputed property, located in Nantou Longwu New Village, is a historically遗留 illegal building. The defendant Wang X Shi's possession of the disputed property originated from a "Gift of House Deed" ten years ago and was closely related to a serious criminal case over a decade earlier. The donor of the "Gift of House Deed," Yao XX, was later added as a third party, and the defendant Wang X Shi's daughter, Wang X Fang, was also added as another defendant.

The legal relationships involved in this case were complex and intertwined, with a large number of historical facts requiring verification, making it a major and difficult case. The defendant Wang X Shi, a migrant worker, was in an extremely passive position during the early stages of the case. In April 2008, the helpless defendant sought legal assistance from Wang Tengfeng, the lead lawyer at Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm. After carefully studying the case, Lead Lawyer Wang Tengfeng, along with intern lawyer Cao Guanghui, decided to uphold justice for the weak. Through a comprehensive analysis and overall planning of the case, they conducted numerous persistent investigations and evidence collections at multiple locations. On the day of the trial, leveraging a large amount of key case facts and with the assistance of Cao Guanghui, Lead Lawyer Wang Tengfeng, relying on his profound legal knowledge, superb courtroom skills, and extensive experience in handling complex and difficult cases, enabled the client Wang X Shi, as the defendant, to fully take the initiative and gain a clear advantage. The entire process of handling the case was full of twists and turns, but every time it seemed hopeless, they managed to turn things around. Ultimately, based on solid facts and the power of legal argument, the court rejected all of the plaintiff's claims.

A long-lost smile reappeared on the defendant's face! Recently, the victorious defendant Wang X Shi specially made two silk banners to present to Lead Lawyer Wang Tengfeng and assisting lawyer Cao Guanghui, who had defended his and his daughter's rights and cleared their names, expressing sincere gratitude and admiration!

Statement of Defense

I. The right of possession is not equivalent to ownership, nor is it equivalent to the possessory element within ownership.

According to Article 71 of the General Principles of the Civil Law: "Property ownership refers to the owner's right to possess, use, benefit from, and dispose of their own property in accordance with the law"; Article 39 of the Property Law: "The owner of a real property or movable property shall, in accordance with the law, enjoy the rights to possess, use, benefit from, and dispose of the property." It can be seen that ownership includes four powers: possession, use, benefit, and disposal. Among them, the right of possession is a manifestation of the owner's direct exercise of ownership. Only those who legally enjoy ownership can possess or authorize others to possess all property. The possession referred to in Chapter 19 of the Property Law refers to a state where the possessor has factual control and custody over an object, and the right of possession is the right enjoyed by the possessor based on the fact of possession.

II. The plaintiff in this case has no factual basis for claiming possession of the disputed property. The allegations in the complaint that "the right of possession has been infringed" and "the source of the right of possession is legitimate and lawful" are completely unfounded.

The plaintiff has no evidence to prove that they occupy the disputed residence, Room xxx, Building xx, Longwu New Village. On the contrary, the defendant has provided partial receipts for water, electricity, telephone, and garbage disposal fees paid for the possession and use of the house (from 2000 to 2008), as well as a certificate of occupancy issued by the Daxin Community Residents' Committee where the disputed house is located. These fully prove the fact that the defendant resides in and uses the disputed house. According to the law, the right of possession belongs to the defendant, not the plaintiff.

The "fundraising contract," "receipt," and "certificate" provided by the plaintiff, regardless of their form and content, are contradicted by government department archives and court-obtained evidence, casting doubt on their authenticity. Even if the plaintiff's alleged "construction activities" existed, they would be illegal (the plaintiff, as a fundraiser, is not a villager of this village, and Tianxia Enterprise Company lacks the qualification for real estate development). This is clearly demonstrated by the reply letter from the Shenzhen Nanshan District "Two Regulations Office" to the court and the "Receipt for Acceptance of Application for Handling Historically Retained Illegal Private Houses in Nanshan District, Shenzhen" provided by the plaintiff. According to Article 30 of the Property Law, only property rights established through lawful construction activities take effect upon the completion of such activities. In other words, even if the plaintiff's alleged fundraising and construction activities existed, they were illegal and cannot confer property rights. In fact, these rights have not been confirmed by the court to date. The plaintiff's claim that their "right of possession is legitimate and lawful" is clearly fabricated.

III. The defendant Wang xx's possession of the disputed property originates from the entrustment of his daughter Wang xx, and constitutes lawful and authorized possession.

Article 241 of the Property Law states: "Possession arising from contractual relationships or other sources, concerning the use,收益, or liability for breach of contract regarding immovable or movable property, shall be governed by the contract." The defendant Wang Zishi exercised possession rights in accordance with the entrustment contract, fully complying with legal provisions. Moreover, the disputed house that Wang xx entrusted to his father Wang xx for residence and management came from a so-called "gift" by a third party, Yao xx, who is the father-in-law of the plaintiff Bai xx. According to Article 106 of the Property Law, Wang xx has acquired ownership of the disputed house in good faith. Any rights or interests disputes between the third party Yao xx and the plaintiff Bai xx do not affect Wang xx's ownership of the house. The detailed analysis is as follows:

Article 106 of the Property Law states: "If a person without the right to dispose transfers immovable or movable property to a transferee, the owner has the right to recover it; except as otherwise provided by law, if the following conditions are met, the transferee acquires ownership of the immovable or movable property: (1) the transferee was in good faith at the time of the transfer; (2) the transfer was made at a reasonable price; (3) the transferred immovable or movable property has been registered as required by law, or if registration is not required, it has been delivered to the transferee."

First, documents such as the "Gift of House Certificate," "Disability Certificate," testimony of witness Wang x, and the 1995 Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court Criminal Division No. 2 First Instance Case No. 376 file indicate that Wang xx came from his hometown in Sichuan to work in Shenzhen at the end of 1994. In early 1995, shortly after being employed by the third party Yao xx, he was severely injured by a criminal, Zhou xx, while protecting Yao xx's property, and subsequently sought medical treatment everywhere. Due to historical reasons such as the disputed house being an illegal private residence, Wang xx, as the donee, could not have known whether Yao xx had the right to dispose of the disputed house at the time of acceptance. In other words, the donee Wang xx was in good faith when accepting the disputed house.

Second, on the surface of the "Gift of House Certificate," the disputed house received by Wang xx was a "gratuitous gift" from the third party Yao xx. However, looking at the entire context of this case, it is clear that Wang xx acquired the disputed house at the cost of sustaining severe injuries and bearing substantial medical expenses. The third party Yao xx transferred the disputed house as a last resort to fulfill his legal liability as an employer. Thus, Wang xx paid a reasonable consideration when accepting the disputed house.

Finally, due to the disputed house being a historically problematic illegal private residence, it cannot be registered for property rights, and the transferee Wang xx could not register it either. However, the disputed house has been physically delivered to the transferee, and Wang xx and his agent Wang xx have openly, peacefully, and continuously occupied and used the house for over ten years. Considering the actual circumstances of this case, Wang xx's acceptance of the disputed house also meets the third condition for good faith acquisition.

In conclusion, the plaintiff's claims lack factual and legal basis and constitute an abuse of litigation. The court is requested to dismiss all of the plaintiff's claims in accordance with the law.