Guangzhou lawyer Zhang Jing answered: Look at the object of demolition compensation, whether it is for the homestead or for the compensation for the superstructured, if there is a part of the compensation for the land, the homestead registrant can share part of the compensation, if all is the compensation for the house, the compensation should be all to the builder, and has nothing to do with the registrant. Lawyer Zhang reminds that when compensating for the demolition of homestead houses, the compensation plan and amount of each demolition project are different, and the houses built on the homestead generally belong to whoever built the house, and the compensation for the demolition of the house also belongs to whom. In the following case, although the homestead certificate is in the name of the elder brother, the elder brother and the younger brother signed an agreement that the younger brother would fund the construction of the house, and the house would belong to the younger brother. When the house was demolished, both the elder brother and the younger brother had died. The sister-in-law sued her brother's children for a split of the expropriation compensation on the grounds that the homestead certificate was in the brother's name and that she had her own share of the compensation. After hearing the case, the court held that according to the expropriation compensation contract, all the compensation was for the house, not for the land, and the agreement stipulated that the house belonged to the younger brother, so the elder brother had no right to divide the compensation, and ruled to reject the sister-in-law's claim.
Excerpt from the verdict:
The court held that: Zhang's sister-in-law claimed that the homestead involved in the case was applied for by Brother Liu, and when Brother Liu applied, she and Brother Liu were husband and wife, so she held that the homestead involved in the case was the joint property of the husband and wife of Brother Liu, belonged to Brother Liu, and she was also one of the heirs, so it held that she had the right to distribute the compensation for land acquisition and demolition of the house involved in the case In this regard, this court held that, firstly, the housing expropriation and demolition compensation and resettlement contract signed by Liu 2 and the ** department was a compensation for the above-ground house, not a compensation for the land Second, Although the homestead involved in the case was applied for by Brother Liu, the above-ground buildings did not automatically belong to Brother Liu Sister-in-law Zhang believed that she had the right to participate in the compensation distribution for the expropriation and demolition of the house involved in the case, and should submit evidence to prove that she was the owner of the house involved in the case, but Sister-in-law Zhang did not provide evidence to prove that the house involved in the case was built by Brother Liu If the house in question was built by Brother Liu, it is impossible for Sister-in-law Zhang, as Brother Liu's spouse, not to know about the construction of the house On the contrary, according to the statement submitted by Sister-in-law Zhang, the house in question was built by Brother Liu Third, Although the declaration states that "the current co-heirs of Brother Liu and Brother Liu, as the declarant, make the following declaration in order to clarify the property rights of the house on the land: the legal user of the land under the above-mentioned house and the actual construction user of the house on the ground are the declarant, and the declarant enjoys all the rights and interests arising from the house on the ground ......."However, as Liu X 4, Liu X 5, Liu X 3, Liu X 2, and Liu X 1 claimed, it was precisely because the homestead applicant and the investor and builder were inconsistent, and in order to proceed smoothly in land acquisition and demolition and avoid disputes, the statement was made by Brother Liu's heirs on the demolition rights and interests of the house involved in the case, and the statement did not state that the house involved in the case was funded and built by Brother Liu, and was Brother Liu's inheritance In summary, the evidence submitted by Zhang's sister-in-law was insufficient to prove that she was the co-owner of the house involved in the case, and she required Liu X 4, Liu X 5, and Liu X 3The basis for Liu2 and Liu1 to pay compensation for house demolition is insufficient, and this court does not support it.