[2] Compiled from: People's Court Daily
 
[3] Recently, the Jinjiang District People's Court in Chengdu, Sichuan Province, adjudicated a dispute over a housing sales contract, ruling that the agreement signed by the plaintiff and defendant to determine the ownership of an affordable housing property harmed public interests and was invalid, thereby dismissing the plaintiff Tan's lawsuit.
 
Case review
[4] On December 16, 2015, Tan's brother-in-law Jiang obtained eligibility to purchase an affordable housing unit in Chengdu. On December 19, 2016, Tan and the defendants, Jiang and his wife, signed an agreement on property ownership, specifying that Jiang and his wife agreed to relinquish their eligibility for the affordable housing purchase. Although the property was registered under Jiang and his wife's names, Tan paid the down payment of 63,486 yuan and a loan of 130,000 yuan for the purchase, making Tan the actual owner with rights of possession and use. Tan and Jiang's couple paid the down payment on the same day and secured a 130,000-yuan loan in Jiang and his wife's names.

 
 

[5] On January 4, 2017, Jiang and his wife signed a sales contract with a Chengdu real estate company to purchase the property via a loan at a total price of 193,486 yuan. Starting January 13, Tan transferred money monthly to Jiang with the note "mortgage repayment, housing loan." From 2018 to early 2022, Tan actually used the property and kept the real estate certificate.
 
On February 18, 2022, Mr. and Mrs. Jiang obtained the ownership registration of the house and refused to transfer it to Tan. Tan then sued in the Jinjiang District Court, requesting the court to rule that the house belonged to him.
 
 
[1] Court Opinion
The agreement between Mr. and Mrs. Jiang and Tan to determine the ownership of the affordable housing, along with Tan's actual possession and use of the property, violated the regulations on the management of affordable housing. Although these regulations are departmental rules and generally do not affect the validity of contracts, the content involves national macro-control policies and public order and good customs. Their actions contravened the state's regulatory policies on policy-based housing and harmed public interests. Therefore, the signed agreement was legally deemed invalid, and Tan's claim to confirm ownership of the house was dismissed.
 
 
《[1] The People's Republic of ChinaCivil Code
Article 153: A civil legal act that violates mandatory provisions of laws or administrative regulations is void, unless the mandatory provision does not render the civil legal act void.
A civil legal act that violates public order and good customs is void.
 
 
[1] The author's perspective
Due to the large populations in many cities but a relative shortage of housing, various purchase restriction policies have been introduced to curb speculative buying and ensure that everyone has a place to live. In this case, affordable housing has a social security nature, typically priced according to government guidance with the principle of covering costs and making small profits. Thus, purchasing such housing usually requires specific qualifications. Those without qualifications have resorted to the idea of buying houses under others' names, but the risks involved cannot be ignored.

The judgment in this case dismissed Tan's claim. Although Tan and Mr. and Mrs. Jiang had signed an agreement on the ownership of the house, the court found that the contract violated public order and good customs and was therefore invalid. The house remains registered under Mr. and Mrs. Jiang's names, showing that Tan suffered a silent loss among family members, unable to voice his grievance. This judgment serves as a warning to those considering buying houses under others' names: do not adopt a mindset of "policies above, countermeasures below" to seek loopholes, or you may end up with nothing.