Research On The Ownership Of Borrowing Other People’s Names To Register House Property

In recent years, due to the over speculation of the real estate market, house prices appears abnormal growth. Although state and local government issued a series of house control policy to curb property prices excessively rising, in real life, in order to pursue the huge benefits of housing appreciation, borrowing names to registration is intensified, the disputes also become the focus of social attention. Borrowing names to registration is that house actual investor come to an agreement with house registrar, in the name of the house registrar buying homes, and house registrar applies for building registration, but house actual investor occupies and using the building. China’s "property law" article 9 regulate that the change of real property right is register, which under normal circumstances the cognizance of housing ownership is based on real property register, and the actual purchase should be consistent with the registrar.However, in the act of borrowing names to registration,house actual investor is inconsistent with the registrar who is registered in the real property register.At this point, according to the real estate registration credibility and presumption registration force determining on the ownership of the house, there is no doubt that will damage the obligee’s interests.In the act of borrowing names to registration, the core problem is judging the housing ownership, which involve to the validity of the agreement that borrow name to buy a house, the house ownership registration and presumption registration force, and many other aspects. Although borrowing names to registration is quite common in practice, there is no specific rule in our country law,and scholars don’t have a unified view, judicial practice also exist in the judgment of different opinions.Aiming at this problem, basing on the summary analysis of borrowing names to registration related legal problems,and combining with other regional scholars’ views, the author explore the way to protect the benefit of holder of the house and the third person, try to provide legal basis for determining the building property right ownership reasonably. This paper is divided into four parts:The first part, introducing case.Refer to two different case verdict, analyzing the disputes of the borrowing names to registration by the claims of the parties and the court’s decision, exploring the current judicial processing status of this case.The second part, analyzing the nature and effectiveness of borrowing names to registration. First of all, summarizing the view of mainland and Taiwan of China scholars about the nature of borrowing names to registration.Taiwan of China scholars tend to adopt "nameless contract said",the mainland scholars generally agree that this agreement is the unknown contract, of course, there are some different opinions. In the process of analysis, concluding the character of borrowing names to registration.Second, listing the views of academia and practice about the effectiveness of borrowing names to registration.On the basis of analysis in this paper, the author presents her viewpoint that concrete analysis of concrete problems according to the reason of borrowing names to registration.The fourth part, determining the ownership of borrowing names to registration borrow name. Comprehending the front three parts for analysis of the legal issues of borrowing names to registration, the author demonstrates the determination of house ownership from the agreement valid and invalid two aspects of borrowing names to buy houses. First of all, when the agreement is invalid, actual investor can’t obtain the ownership of the building in principle. Second, in the case of effective agreement, it is necessary to distinguish whether the contract involves the interests of a third person in good faith. If borrowing names to registration does not involve a third person in good faith, actual investor can acquire building property right in principle. In the case of involving a third person, laws tend to protect the interests of a third person in good faith in the deal, so the actual investor can’t claims that the third person return the original items because of registration error, only can bear the adverse consequences of the loss of property rights.