Foreword
In reality, due to the complexity of property rights and many historical problems, there are often property rights disputes in some old communities, resulting in no qualified subject to be acquired.
For example, the acquisition of a house without a property right certificate, the transfer of ownership for multiple transactions, the death of the owner without the heirs going through the inheritance procedures, the whereabouts of the property owner is unknown but there is no legal heir, and there may be differences between the registered owner and the actual owner of the house. In this case, how should the collection be carried out?
Legal Answers
Article 26 of the Expropriation Regulations stipulates the situation that "the owner of the house is not clear".It is generally believed that it refers to the situation where there is no proof of property rights, the whereabouts of the property owner are unknown, the legal owner of the property right cannot be verified for the time being, or the lawsuit is being filed due to the property right relationship.
Since the owner of the house is not clear, the object of compensation is uncertain, and it is often difficult to make compensation. In this case, this does not mean that compensation for such houses should be lowered or not compensated, and that the entire expropriation compensation process should not be affected by the prolonged delay. In order to ensure the legitimate rights and interests of the expropriated persons and the smooth progress of the expropriation of the houses, in addition to making a compensation decision for the expropriated persons who cannot reach a compensation agreement, it is also necessary to make a compensation decision in accordance with the law if the owners of the expropriated houses are not clear.
In the case of a dispute over the property rights of the expropriated houses, the expropriation management department cannot sign an expropriation compensation agreement with any party to the dispute, and can only make a decision on expropriation compensation for the expropriated houses by the people who made the expropriation decision in accordance with the law, and deposit the expropriation compensation and compensation and resettlement houses. After the parties to the relevant dispute resolve the civil dispute over the expropriation of housing property rights in accordance with the law, the people** who made the expropriation compensation decision shall issue the expropriation compensation to the right holder in accordance with the effective legal documents and carry out resettlement compensation.
At present, there is only one legal way to withdraw and withdraw notarized deposits. According to the Rules for Notarization of Deposits, notarization of deposits is an activity in which a notary office entrusts and keeps the subject matter or collateral (including substitutes for collateral) of the debt delivered by the debtor or guarantor for the benefit of the creditor in accordance with the statutory conditions and procedures, and delivers it to the creditor when the conditions are fulfilled. The person who applies to the notary public for the purpose of fulfilling the repayment obligation or guarantee obligation is the depositor. The creditor of the debt deposited is the recipient of the deposit.
Related Cases
An industrial investment company sued the people of a certain district for expropriation compensation
The house involved in this case is located at No. XXX of a village in a certain district. On April 23, 1994, Chen Mourong, the third party of the first instance, and Zhang Mourong, the father of the third party of the first instance, Zhang, signed the "Real Estate Purchase and Sales Contract" with Wang Moushan, and gave the house involved in the case to Wang Moushan.
After signing the contract, Zhang Mourong and Chen Mourong directly applied for the real estate certificate under the name of Wang Moushan. On March 6, 2002, the Xinhua District People's Court of Haikou City issued the (2002) Xin Zhi Zi No. 170 Civil Ruling, compensating Lin Moujun for the No. xxx house of an engineering company located in a village in a certain city of Hainan Company. On May 22, 2002, Lin obtained the ownership certificate of the house involved in the case.
On April 10, 2005, the People's Court of Yongning County, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, made the (2004) Yong Fa Zhi Zi No. 414-4 Civil Ruling, and the property was valued at 239,400 yuan to pay off the debt to a feed group. On November 2, 2006, a feed group applied to the Municipal Real Estate Administration Bureau for the registration of housing ownership, and obtained the ownership certificate of the house involved in the case on March 1, 2007. On May 25, 2012, house No. xxx in a village in a city was registered in the name of an industrial investment company. On August 18, 2015, the people of a certain district issued the "Notice on the Investigation of the Expropriation of a Shantytown (Urban Village) Reconstruction Project in a District of a City" to investigate and register the units and individuals within the scope of the expropriation.
On December 2, 2015, the people of a certain district made the "Decision on the Expropriation of Houses for a Shantytown (Urban Village) Reconstruction Project in a District of a City", which involved above-ground buildings, structures and other appurtenances within the scope of a certain community and a certain 2 community. The expropriation decision was announced through the webpages of Xinmin.com and Guangming.com.
On August 20, 2016 and September 27, 2016, the management committee for the promotion of key projects in a district of a certain city signed the "Monetization and Resettlement Agreement on the Expropriation and Monetization of a Shantytown (Urban Village) Reconstruction Project in a District of a City" with Zhang and Chen Mourong on the resettlement compensation of a house and its appurtenances in a certain district, and the expropriation bureau of a district paid 1185675 yuan in compensation to Zhang on September 13, 2016, 1186093 yuan to Chen, and 10,800 yuan to Chen on October 24, 2016.
The Intermediate People's Court of Haikou City, Hainan Province (2017) Qiong 01 Xingchu No. 720 Administrative Judgment ordered a district ** to compensate an industrial investment company for the expropriation of No. X real estate in a village in a certain city within 30 days from the date of the effective date of the judgment.
Hainan Provincial High People's Court (2018) Qiong Xingzhong No. 12 Administrative Judgment, the people of a certain district ** dealt with the expropriation compensation of house X in a village in a certain city in accordance with the law.
After examination, the Supreme People's Court held that in the case of a dispute over the property rights of the expropriated houses, the expropriation management department cannot sign an expropriation compensation agreement with any party to the dispute, and can only make a decision on expropriation compensation for the expropriated houses by the people who made the expropriation decision in accordance with the law, and deposit the expropriation compensation and the compensation and resettlement houses. After the parties to the relevant dispute resolve the civil dispute over the expropriation of housing property rights in accordance with the law, the people** who made the expropriation compensation decision shall issue the expropriation compensation to the right holder in accordance with the effective legal documents and carry out resettlement compensation.
In this case, the management committee for the promotion of key projects in a district or city of a certain city directly signed a resettlement agreement with Zhang and Chen Mourong, knowing that the registered owner of the house and the actual owner might be different and that there was a dispute over the ownership of the house, and paid the expropriation compensation accordingly, which obviously did not comply with the provisions of the expropriation regulations.
An industrial investment company asserted that after the second-instance judgment was rendered, it repeatedly requested the people of a certain district to deal with it, but the people of a certain district have not yet made a disposition. In this regard, the people of a certain district shall, in accordance with the provisions of the expropriation regulations, deal with the issue of compensation for the expropriation of the houses involved in the case as soon as possible, and substantively resolve the administrative dispute in this case.
It should be pointed out that an industrial investment company claims that it is the owner of the expropriated house, and it can also solve the ownership of the property rights of the house involved in the case in accordance with the law through civil litigation and other statutory channels, and then request the people of a certain district to give compensation for expropriation after the property rights are clear.
In summary, the ruling rejected the retrial application of an industrial investment company.
Relevant Laws
Paragraph 1 of Article 26 of the Regulations on the Expropriation and Compensation of Houses on State-owned LandIf the housing expropriation department and the expropriated person fail to reach a compensation agreement within the time limit specified in the expropriation compensation plan, or the owner of the expropriated house is not clear, the housing expropriation department shall report to the people at the city and county level who made the housing expropriation decision in accordance with the provisions of these Regulations, make a compensation decision in accordance with the expropriation compensation plan, and make a public announcement within the scope of housing expropriation.