Case 1: A real estate title certificate applied for replacement on false grounds should be revoked
Basic facts of the case
In December 2012, Company A signed a Land Transfer Agreement with Wei, stipulating that Wei would transfer the land use right under his name to Company A. On the same day, Wei handed over the original state-owned land use right certificate to Company A, and Company A paid off the transfer money. In March 2016, Wei was notarized and entrusted Bi to handle the registration of the transfer of land use rights on his behalf, during which Company A and Bi did not apply for the registration of the transfer of land use rights or the registration of advance notice, and in August 2018, Wei applied to the registration department for the replacement of the real estate ownership certificate on the grounds of the loss of the real estate ownership certificate he held, and submitted relevant materials. In December 2018, after reviewing and making an announcement and statement, the registration department reissued the real estate property right certificate with Wei and Wang as the right holders to Wei and his wife. Subsequently, Wei and Wang entered into an Equity Investment Agreement with Company B, agreeing to invest their land use rights under the warrants into Company B. In January 2019, the two parties applied for registration of the transfer of land use rights, and in April of the same year, Company B obtained the real estate property certificate of the land use rights involved in the case and became the right holder. In May 2020, Company A filed an administrative lawsuit requesting the revocation of the real estate title certificate reissued by the immovable property registration department and registered in the name of Company B.
Referee's view
The court of first instance held that, in accordance with the provisions of the Land Transfer Agreement, Company A only obtained the right to claim the land use right involved in the case, and the claim did not have the effect of being registered in advance, that is, it did not have the effect of excluding subsequent changes in the real right. The registration of the reissuance and transfer of the land use right involved in the case by the immovable property registration department complied with the legal procedures, and the judgment rejected the litigation claim of Company A. The court of second instance held that although the real estate registration department had fulfilled its duty of prudence in accordance with the law with respect to Wei's application for supplementation, Wei deliberately concealed the fact that the land use right involved in the certificate had been transferred to Company A by agreement, and the original certificate had been handed over to Company A for storage, falsely claimed that the original certificate was lost, and applied for a replacement of the warrant for false reasons, which violated the principle of good faith and social morality, and that the registration act carried out by the real estate registration department based on Wei's false claim of false reporting was wrong and should be revoked. Therefore, the real estate title certificate that was subsequently transferred and registered based on the above-mentioned illegal registration act should also be revoked, and the final judgment should be made to revoke the first-instance judgment and revoke the reissued real estate title certificate registered in the name of Company B.
Case 2: The act of providing false materials for registration is confirmed to be illegal
Basic facts of the case
In January 1996, the county ** handled a state-owned land use certificate for Jiang. In July 1999, in order to pay off the debt, Jiang signed the Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Housing with Huang in the process of enforcing the civil judgment of the county people's court, agreeing to transfer the house (including the land use right) to Huang, and on the same day, the county people's court issued a Notice of Certificate of Transfer of Housing Property Rights. In May 2011, Mr. Huang entrusted Mr. Wang with full authority to handle the registration of the change of land use right on his behalf. In April 2015, the county ** transferred and registered Jiang's land use right to Huang's name. In July 2016, Huang transferred the property to Dong, Dong paid a reasonable price, and the real estate ownership certificate was handled in Dong's name. After investigation, in the process of handling the registration of the change of land use rights, the "Jiang" in the "Jiang's Power of Attorney", "Application Form for Verification of State-owned Land Use Right Transactions" and "Transfer Contract for the Transfer of State-owned Land Use Rights" were not Jiang's own signature. Jiang believed that the immovable property registration department handled the change of registration based on the forged and forged evidence unilaterally provided by Huang, and that the administrative act infringed on his legitimate rights and interests, and submitted the Application for Correction of Registration to the registration department in January 2018, but the registration department refused to handle it, and then sued the registration department to request the revocation of the land registration.
Referee's view
The people's court of first instance held that: Huang applied to the real estate registration department for change registration in accordance with the effective legal documents and the Notice of Certificate of Transfer of Housing Property Rights issued by the county people's court, but the registration department instructed Huang to handle the registration according to the procedures applied by both parties, and among the application materials submitted by Huang, "Jiang's Power of Attorney", "Application Form for Verification of State-owned Land Use Right Transaction" and "Contract for the Transfer of State-owned Land Use Rights" It was a false application material, and Jiang himself did not show up, and he did not fulfill his obligation to prudently review the above-mentioned materials, so the administrative registration act was illegal. However, since the land involved in the case had been transferred by Huang to Dong, Dong had obtained the right to use the land in good faith and gone through the relevant procedures for the registration of immovable property, the land registration in this case should not be revoked in accordance with the law. The judgment confirmed that the administrative act of the registration department in issuing the State-owned Land Use Certificate to Huang in April 2016 was unlawful. Jiang was dissatisfied and appealed. The court of second instance rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
Case Study
From the perspective of immovable property registration, the key point of the difference in the adjudication results of the two cases is not whether the registration department has fulfilled its duty of prudent review, but whether the subsequent transfer constitutes a bona fide acquisition. Even if the registration department fulfills its reasonable obligation of review, it cannot deny the illegal nature of the administrative act made on the basis of false materials or false claims, but in order to protect the legitimate rights and interests of bona fide third parties and maintain the order and security of the transaction, it can only confirm that the registration act handled by the registration applicant concealing the true situation is illegal and retain its legal effect. In Case 2, because Dong's transfer was acquired in good faith, the revocation of his previous registration was blocked. This article analyzes whether the bona fide acquisition system can be applied to the trial of immovable property administrative registration cases, how to examine whether it constitutes bona fide acquisition, and how to apply the legal basis for the law. 1. The bona fide acquisition system applies to the trial of administrative casesIn administrative litigation cases involving real estate registration, some parties believe that bona fide acquisition is a civil legal system and that the adjustment is a civil legal relationship, while the subject matter of the administrative case is an administrative-legal relationship, and that bona fide acquisition should not be reviewed in the trial of the administrative case, otherwise it will exceed the scope of review of the administrative litigation. In fact, in the administrative case of real estate registration, it will inevitably involve the determination of whether the civil legal facts of the transfer registration are true and legal, and if the review of the civil relationship is blindly excluded, it will not only increase the litigation costs of the parties, but also may cause the same fact to be contradictory in the civil and administrative cases. Moreover, administrative adjudication is also responsible for maintaining the security of transactions and protecting the legitimate rights and interests of bona fide third parties. The Administrative Tribunal of the Supreme People's Court mentioned in the Reply to the Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Administrative Cases Obtained in Good Faith (Xing Ta Zi No. 5, 1999) that "with regard to whether the deposit that has been deducted from the development of the Chaozhou City Golden Trade Economy is obtained in good faith, please confirm it in accordance with the law on the basis of ascertaining the facts." Accordingly, in an administrative lawsuit, the people's court may, on the basis of ascertaining the facts, make a determination as to whether it constitutes a bona fide acquisition. It should be noted that the application of the bona fide acquisition system to the trial of administrative cases does not mean that the judgment on the legality of the specific administrative act involved in the litigation is also applicable.
2. Examination of bona fide acquisition of immovable propertyIn administrative registration cases, the examination of bona fide acquisition of immovable property focuses on the following three aspects.
1.The transferee is acting in good faith when he acquires the immovable property.
1) How to understand "at the time of transfer". According to Article 17 of the Interpretation (I) of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Property Rights Section of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the "Judicial Interpretation of the Property Rights Edition"), it can be seen that "when the transferee acquires the immovable property", "at the time of transfer" refers to the time when the registration of the transfer of the immovable property right is completed in accordance with the law. After the registration of the transfer of immovable property rights is completed, if the transferee learns that the transferor has no right to dispose of it, it will not affect the acquisition of ownership.
2) How to understand "goodwill". There are theories such as "positive ideas" and "negative ideas". The positive concept asserts that good faith is based on the notion that the transferor is regarded as the owner, i.e., the grantor's knowledge of the reality of the right, based on the appearance of the grantor's rights. The negative concept requires that the assignee does not know or should not have known that the assignor is a person without the right of disposition. We have adopted the negative notion that ignorance is goodwill, which is beneficial to bona fide transferees. In practice, the determination of "good faith" is more complicated. Article 14 of the Judicial Interpretation on Property Rights clarifies that the criterion for determining the transferee's good faith is that the transferee does not know and does not know that the transferor has no right to dispose of it without knowing it due to gross negligence, and clarifies that the determination of good faith adopts a presumption method, that is, the transferee is first presumed to be bona fide, and then the real right holder shall provide evidence to prove that the transferee is not in good faith, and if the real right holder cannot prove it, the transferee will be deemed to be in good faith.
2.to a reasonable ** transfer.
That is, the transferee must take actual possession of the acquired property through exchange, and the transfer is reasonable for compensation. According to the provisions of Article 19 of the Judicial Interpretation of Property Rights "reasonable**", it shall be comprehensively determined according to the specific circumstances such as the nature, quantity and payment method of the subject matter of the transfer, with reference to the market ** of the place of transaction at the time of transfer, and transaction Xi. In the case of the Supreme People's Court (2013) Xingjian Zi No. 557 "Administrative Litigation Case of a Hotel v. City", the hotel used the purchased land use right as the capital of the shares, and although the registration of the real estate registration department violated the legal procedures, the real estate rights and interests acquired by the company in good faith should still be protected. From the adjudication point of view of this case, the purchase of land use rights as a share is still a paid transfer, and bona fide acquisition can also be applied.
3.The transferred immovable property has been registered.
The immovable property must be registered in accordance with the method of publicity of changes in real rights in order for the effect of bona fide acquisition to occur. If it does not conform to the method of publicity of changes in real rights, it shall not be effective in good faith.
All three of these elements are indispensable. As long as one of the requirements is not met, it can be determined that it does not constitute a bona fide acquisition. Comparatively speaking, the examination and determination of the latter two elements is more direct and easy.
3. Scope of application of bona fide acquisition of immovable propertyAlthough bona fide acquisition is stipulated in the ownership part, the third paragraph of Article 311 of the Civil Code expands the scope of application of the bona fide acquisition system, and bona fide acquisition can also be applied to other real rights of immovable property, not limited to ownership. In practice, the right to use state-owned construction land, mortgage of houses, easements and other real rights of immovable property are also subject to bona fide acquisition, and the applicable rules are in accordance with the general rules of bona fide acquisition of ownership. 4. Circumstances in which an act that is invalid or revoked for reasons excludes the applicationAccording to Article 20 of the Judicial Interpretation of the Property Title, the application of the bona fide acquisition system should be excluded when the transfer contract (i.e., the act of cause) is found to be invalid or revoked. Although theoretically, the validity of a causal act is not a precondition or statutory constituent element of bona fide acquisition, it is not necessary to examine the validity of a causal act to determine whether it constitutes a bona fide acquisition. However, in the context of the entire legal system, the validity of the causal act will still affect the judgment of whether the bona fide acquisition system can be applied. According to the text, as long as the contract of assignment is found to be invalid or revoked, regardless of the specific cause, the application of the bona fide acquisition system can be excluded. Therefore, in the case of bona fide acquisition of immovable property, if the act of reason registered in the transfer contract, etc., is found to be invalid or revoked, the bona fide acquisition system of immovable property is no longer applicable. 5. Application of the law to the bona fide acquisition of immovable propertyIn the case of the administrative registration of housing in the Supreme Court (2017) Xing Zai No. 95, the Supreme People's Court held that a negative evaluation of the sued administrative act does not mean that the administrative act must be revoked. Article 74, paragraph 1, item (1) provides for a judgment method that makes a negative assessment of the legality of the sued administrative act without changing the legal relationship formed by the administrative act, and the conditions for the use of this judgment method include situations involving bona fide third parties in addition to the national interest or the public interest. Paragraph 3 of Article 11 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Housing Registration Cases (Fa Shi 2010 No. 15) stipulates that if the registration of the sued house is illegal, but the revocation of the judgment will cause significant losses to the public interest or the house has been acquired by a third party in good faith, the judgment shall confirm that the sued act is illegal and the registration shall not be revoked. In administrative adjudication, although there is no clear legal or judicial interpretation in land registration cases, the relevant legal principles are the same, and such provisions can be applied by reference in the trial of land registration cases[1]. Therefore, in an administrative registration case, if the transferee of the immovable property rights was acquired in good faith, the above basis can be applied to confirm that the sued registration act is unlawful.
end—The person is underlined.
Copywriting|Fan Fengjuan.
DisclaimerThe views in this article are only for the purpose of exchange and discussion, and should not be regarded as formal legal opinions or suggestions of Yunnan Lingyun Law Firm. If you have any legal questions or need legal services, please feel free to contact us. Yunnan Lingyun Law Firm is neutral on the content, statements and opinions shared, and does not provide any express or implied guarantee for the authenticity, reliability or completeness of the content included, which is for readers' reference only
[Copyright Notice].**Only for communication Xi, forbidden for commercial use, the copyright belongs to the original owner, if **marked incorrectly or infringes your rights and interests, please let us know, we will delete immediately.