Case facts

Ma Cong and Wang Hong are husband and wife, Ma Cong and Ma Liang are state cadres, and Ma Cong and Ma Ming and Liu Ma are brothers. 1994, Ma Cong bought a house in full in the name of Ma Ming, and Ma Liang bought another house in the same community in the name of Liu Ma. From 1998 to 2003, the disputed house was used by Ma Cong. In 2003, Ma Ming lost his residence, and Ma Cong let Ma Ming live in the disputed house for free. On 20 1 1 year, Ma Ming moved back to Shunyi to hand over the disputed house to others, but Ma Cong repeatedly requested to return it. Ma Cong also claimed that due to Ma Ming's non-cooperation, it has been impossible to handle the property formalities and transfer procedures. Therefore, the court is requested: 1. Confirm that the disputed houses are owned by Ma Cong and Wang Hong according to law; 2. Ma Ming assisted Ma Cong and Wang Hong in handling the registration procedures of housing disputes; 3. Ma Ming gave the disputed house to Ma Cong and Wang Hong.

Ma Ming argued that there was no agreement between the two parties to register by name, and there was no capital contribution in Ma Cong. The house involved is owned by Ma Ming and has nothing to do with Ma Cong.

Trial process of first instance: the court of first instance found that the original purchase invoice and occupancy signing form of the disputed house were held by Ma Cong; After September 2003, Ma Ming has been living in the house involved;

During the trial, three witnesses, namely,, and Ma, were provided to testify in court and a copy of recorded materials was provided to prove that the disputed house was owned by. Ma Ming clearly admitted in the recording materials: "I live in your uncle's room now, and I will admit that this room is his at any time."

Views of the court of first instance: 1. The signature on the purchase invoice and occupancy contract is Ma Ming, but the originals are all owned by Ma Cong. Ma Ming said that he bought the house involved in the case in cash, but there was no original certificate, which was unreasonable.

Second, witnesses Ma Liang, Liu Ma, Ma Cong and Ma Ming are twins, and their testimony has great probative force. When there is a dispute over the house involved, the two will coordinate in the middle and know the real situation, so the testimony is quite reliable; In addition, two witnesses proved that the house in this case was purchased by Ma Cong in the name of Ma Ming, which could explain why the original purchase invoice and occupancy contract were in Ma Cong's hands.

Third, witness Ma Liang said that he and Ma Cong both bought a house in the Garden Community and asked Ma Cong to find a way to buy it in the name of others. Witness Liu Ma said that Ma Liang borrowed his name when he bought a house in the Garden Community. Therefore, it is reasonable for Ma Cong to borrow Ma Ming's name when buying the house involved.

Judgment of first instance:

1. The disputed house belongs to Ma Cong and Wang Hong;

2. Ma Ming assisted Ma Cong and Wang Hong in handling the registration procedures of housing disputes;

3. Ma Ming gave the disputed house to Ma Cong and Wang Hong.

Ma Ming refused to accept the appeal, requested to cancel the original judgment and rejected the other party's claim. The reasons for the appeal are: the court of first instance found that there was no evidence for the agreement between the two parties to buy a house under their own names; The appellant submitted sufficient evidence in the first instance to prove that the house involved was purchased by the appellant; The court of first instance did not determine the issue of capital contribution; The disputed house has not been initially registered, and its property rights have not been established; The house is a small property right, so it is impossible to handle all the warrants; The issue of vacating the house is not a legal relationship with this case.

Finding out in the second instance: The facts found out by the court of second instance through trial are consistent with those found out by the court of first instance.

Regarding whether the house can be registered for ownership, Ma Ming said that the house is built on collective land and cannot be sold to the outside world. So far, there is no real estate license; Ma Cong said that this community can handle the property right certificate from 2006 to 2007.

The view of the court of second instance: the relationship between Ma Cong, Wang Hong and Ma Ming in the name of buying a house can be identified. However, the court of first instance ruled directly that it was inappropriate to confirm that the ownership belonged to Ma Cong and Wan Hong.

Judgment of second instance:

1. Maintain the third item of x 1 civil judgment of Changping District People's Court of Beijing;

2. Cancel the first and second items of the civil judgment x 1 of Changping District People's Court in Beijing;

3. Reject the claims of Ma Cong and Wang Hong to confirm that the disputed house belongs to Ma Cong and Wang Hong, and ask Ma Ming to help hand over the house.

The crux of this case lies in whether there is an agreement between Ma Cong, Wang Hong and Ma Ming to use this as an excuse to purchase the houses involved. To judge whether there is such an agreement between the two parties, it is necessary to comprehensively analyze all the evidence materials provided by both parties around the houses involved. In the first instance, the recording submitted by Ma Cong proved that the disputed house belonged to Ma Cong, and Ma Ming questioned the recording evidence submitted by Ma Cong but did not apply for identification, so the court should confirm the authenticity of the recording materials; Ma's witness testimony and his witness testimony, which prove that the facts are consistent with the statement of buying a house in his name; Although Ma Ming filed an appeal and provided relevant evidence, it proved that contacting the housing, signing the agreement, paying the property heating fee, decorating and living were all performed by Ma Ming. However, these procedures are necessary for controversial house purchase, regardless of whether there is a house purchase under the name. Therefore, it is undeniable that there is an agreement between Ma Cong and Wang Hong to buy houses in this name. Therefore, it can be concluded that there is an agreement between Ma Cong, Wang Hong and Ma Ming to purchase houses in the name in question. Therefore, Ma Ming should fulfill the contract and give the disputed house to Ma Cong and Wang Hong. If Ma Ming thinks that he has contributed to the house or suffered losses due to the excuse of buying a house, he can negotiate with Ma Cong or solve it separately.

But at the same time, it should be noted that the relationship between buying a house under the name is the contractual relationship between the two parties. The borrower has the right to ask the celebrity to perform the contract, but it cannot directly obtain the ownership. In this case, the ownership of the disputed house has not been registered, and it can only be handled after the relevant procedures are supplemented. Therefore, the court of first instance should not directly decide that the ownership belongs to Ma Cong and Wang Hong, and the transfer problem should be fulfilled according to the agreement of both parties to buy a house in the name of borrowing when the conditions are ripe. Therefore, this requires a clear agreement between the two parties, such as buying a house under the name, clearly stipulating the rights and obligations of the investor and the obligee, and subsequent transfer. In this way, if disputes arise in the future, the actual buyers can defend their rights through judicial means based on written evidence.