Regarding the above issue, our firm's lawyers filed a civil lawsuit on behalf of Miss A to terminate the registration in another's name, demanding Mr. B return the house registration contract. However, Miss A and Mr. B had not formally signed any written agreement.

 

The establishment of a contract does not require a written form (Article 153 of the Civil Code).

Miss A and Mr. B agreed to use Mr. B's name for the purchase to benefit from a more favorable loan rate, indicating a motive for the registration in another's name.

Miss A had always kept the original property right certificate, sales contract, and loan contract (it's common for the original documents to be held by the legitimate user), which were presented in court by the lawyer.

Miss A paid the initial payment for the house, the decoration fees, and the loan, providing proof of the financial transactions.

All expenses related to the house, such as water, electricity, gas, phone, internet, management fees, property tax, and land value tax were entirely funded by Miss A, who presented the relevant payment receipts.

The lawyer used the above facts in the lawsuit to prove the existence of a contract for registration in another's name between Miss A and Mr. B. Based on Article 549 of the Civil Code, they terminated the registration contract, and under the provisions of Article 541, Paragraph 2, and Article 179 on restitution after termination and unjust enrichment, demanded Mr. B transfer the property rights back to Miss A.

Our firm's litigation strategy successfully obtained a judgment in favor of Miss A, with the court making the following decision: "The disputed house was decorated and equipped at the expense of Miss A, with the down payment and the loan also fully funded by her, and all related fees such as management fees, land value taxes, and property taxes have always been paid by Miss A. There is reliable documentation to believe Miss A's assertion that she has been managing and benefiting from the property since its purchase, and this should correspond to the facts and is credible. Furthermore, Miss A is currently in possession and safekeeping of the original property ownership certificate, the original property sales contract, and the original property loan contract of the disputed property; although Mr. B contends that Miss A stole these original documents, this claim has been denied by Miss A. According to Article 277 of the Civil Procedure Law, 'A party who asserts a fact that is advantageous to their case bears the burden of proof for that fact.' Also, there is a distinction between normal and abnormal situations in factual assertions, the claimant of a normal fact does not bear the burden of proof, whereas the claimant of an abnormal fact does. This is supported by the Supreme Court's decisions in 1997 and 2016, which state that it is normal for the original documents to be held by the rightfuland abnormal for someone without rights to steal and possess them. Therefore, Mr. B, who contends that the original documents concerning the property right certificate, sales contract, and loan contract were stolen by Miss A, should bear the burden of proof for the illegal act that benefits himself, as mentioned above.

 

However, the defendant has not provided any evidence to support his defense that the original documents of the disputed property were stolen by the plaintiff, and thus Mr. B's defense that Miss A stole the original documents is evidently insufficient. Miss A's assertion that she has personally held the original documents of the property ownership certificate, sales contract, and loan contract since the purchase of the disputed property should be credible. Considering the significant value of real estate and the substantial losses that may be incurred due to any carelessness in handling property rights matters, the general public is extremely cautious and careful in these transactions. The property ownership certificate is a crucial document proving ownership and is required for real estate transactions such as sales and mortgages. According to general practice in our country, if the real owner of a property has to register it in someone else's name, even if they do not ask the other party to sign a written contract, they usually keep the ownership certificate to protect their rights. Since Miss A is holding the original property ownership certificate and the important documents of the purchase and loan contracts, and Mr. B cannot reasonably explain why these documents are in Miss A's possession, it is doubtful that Mr. B is the real owner of the disputed property... Thus, the facts indicate that Miss A's claim that Mr. B is not the real owner of the disputed property and is only registered in his name, and that a contract for registration in another's name does exist between the two parties, should be credible.

 

Therefore, Miss A's claim that the delivery of the civil complaint to Mr. B signifies the termination of the above-mentioned registration in another's name, and that Mr. B is obliged to return the property ownership to the plaintiff after the termination of their registration contract, is well-founded. Consequently, Miss A applies by analogy the obligation to transfer rights after the termination or dissolution of an agency relationship according to Article 541, Paragraph 2 of the Civil Code, and the right to demand restitution for unjust enrichment according to Article 179 of the same code, demanding Mr. B to transfer the ownership of the disputed property to the plaintiff.

 

Registering a property in someone else's name may be based on trust or financial considerations, but reclaiming it often presents challenges. We hope to provide valuable insights and assistance to those facing such issues. Remember, protecting your assets should always be the top priority. Finally, remember to proceed with caution in significant property transactions, ensuring every step is legally protected, and seek the assistance of a professional lawyer if related issues arise.