Recently, a case in Luohu involving an "ownerless" property being taken over by the state has caught the attention of many Shenzhen citizens.
 

The Shenzhen Municipal Bureau of Justice initiated a judicial determination process for an ownerless property in Luohu District (Photo provided by Shenzhen Municipal Bureau of Justice).
 

A villager named Cai in Luohu District had no children. In his old age, he turned to his niece, who cared for him and arranged his funeral. According to a demolition compensation agreement signed before his death, Cai owned a replacement property, which was built and allocated only after his death. Cai's niece filed a lawsuit in court, requesting a share of the property. Since the niece had provided support to Cai during his lifetime and handled his funeral arrangements, the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court ruled that she was entitled to 30% of the property, while the remaining 70% was deemed ownerless. According to Article 32 of the Inheritance Law, "Property that has no heir or legatee shall belong to the state." After the city's legal advisory office filed an application to declare the property ownerless, and the Luohu District Court published a notice, the property share remained unclaimed after a one-year notice period. On February 20, 2019, the Luohu District Court heard the case, with the legal advisory office representing the city government. The court's first-instance judgment ruled that the 70% share of the property in question belonged to the state. (Source: Guangzhou Daily)
 

The Inheritance Law of the People's Republic of China and some of its provisions (Image source: Internet)
 

The author believes that, aside from the factor that Cai's niece lacked legal awareness and failed to effectively protect her own legitimate rights, this is a typical erroneous case that deviates from China's national conditions and history, competes with the people for benefits, mechanically interprets and applies the law, and can even be said to trample on human relations and family bonds.

Article 9 of the Inheritance Law stipulates gender equality, and Article 10 specifies the first and second orders of statutory inheritance. The status of a nephew or niece is indeed not included in the statutory inheritance order.However, the law cannot exhaustively list all possibilities.And according to Article 32 of the Inheritance Law,Once a court rules that "the estate has no owner," it will inevitably be taken over by the state, resulting in the consequence of "the state competing with the people for profit."Therefore, when adjudicating cases involving a mix of property relations, personal relations, and social relations, courts must not mechanically apply legal provisions. Instead, they should fully consider national conditions, history, and social impact, see through the "appearance" of legal provisions to grasp the "essence" of the underlying reasons, and render judgments that are based on the law but more in line with common sense.

The Chinese nation is a people with a very strong sense of blood lineage and family, which is also the foundation for our culture to continue for 5,000 years without interruption. As the saying goes, "There are three unfilial acts, the greatest is having no offspring." In traditional culture, "having no descendants" is a highly taboo matter. Therefore, in feudal society, large families, including the imperial family, had the concept of "adoption"—when a branch of the family had no heirs, after a family council, a male child from another branch would be adopted to continue the family line and inherit property. Although Cai's niece was not in the legal inheritance order, according to traditional culture, she was still within the five degrees of mourning. To put it bluntly: if Cai were sentenced to the extermination of his nine clans, his niece would be implicated.

Cai's niece not only had a blood relationship with Cai but also assisted him for many years and provided for his funeral. According to Article 31 of the Inheritance Law, Cai's niece could obtain Cai's property, only lacking a legacy-support agreement.But should the court use this judgment to guide and encourage Chinese people who "have blood relations but are not in the legal inheritance order" to first sign a legacy-support agreement before supporting (assisting) their relatives?The intermediate court judge ruled that "Cai's niece receives a 30% share" based on her actions of assisting and arranging the funeral. While state judicial power can quantify the consideration of actions, can blood kinship be quantified as a monetary relationship?

The author believes that Cai's niece not only had a close blood relationship with Cai but also fulfilled the duty of assistance and funeral arrangements—although this duty falls under traditional culture rather than legal provisions. Therefore, Cai's niece should inherit the entire property as an heir. Moreover, looking at the overall case, the actual final result is: the state, through the exercise of judicial power, after ruling the estate as ownerless, takes personal property into state ownership. This inevitably gives people a feeling: "Compete with the people for profit, and for money, even lose face!"