文章分類Article
Name Lending | How to Reclaim a Property Registered Under Someone Else’s Name?
.png)
In today's real estate market, registering a property under another person's name is a common phenomenon. Whether due to loan restrictions, legal barriers, or based on trust, people often choose to register property under someone else's name. Although this practice may offer convenience in the short term, it carries numerous hidden risks in the long run. From legal disputes to loss of property rights, name lending can become quite complicated, especially when the original property owner intends to reclaim the property…
Case Background
Ms. A and Mr. B were married. Ms. A had worked for many years at a foreign enterprise, while Mr. B was a civil servant.
During their dating period, they were deeply committed and planning for the future. Ms. A generously suggested that she would provide the funds to invest in their future home as the residence for their married life. While preparing to purchase the home, they learned that with Mr. B's status as a civil servant, they could enjoy preferential mortgage interest rates. Ms. A thought at the time that since the two planned to spend their lives together, there was no need for concern. Without drafting any written name-lending agreement or document, she decided to purchase the house in Mr. B's name and have him apply for the mortgage. In reality, however, Ms. A paid the entire down payment, renovation costs, and all monthly installments, management fees, water, electricity, and gas bills, and other expenses.
Unexpectedly, a few years after marriage, Mr. B repeatedly had extramarital affairs and insisted on abandoning the family and divorcing Ms. A. He even told her: “According to the Civil Code, the house is registered in my name, so it is mine. I am the owner. Please move out!” Faced with this situation, Ms. A thought: “I clearly paid for the house, I paid the mortgage, and I covered all expenses. Just because the property was registered under Mr. B's name, can he now claim it as his own and refuse to acknowledge the truth?!” With her marriage broken and the property taken, Ms. A sought legal assistance from our firm.
According to Article 759-1, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Code：“Where a real property right has been registered, the person registered is presumed to hold that right lawfully.” Therefore, in principle, the person whose name is registered as the owner of real property (house or land) is legally “presumed” to be the owner. However, regarding the circumstances Ms. A faced, could Mr. B truly rely on this provision to fake legitimacy and seize the property? This issue concerns the legal matter of name lending in real property.
WHP's Successful Litigation Experience
In response, our legal team filed a lawsuit on behalf of Ms. A seeking termination of the name-lending arrangement and demanding that Mr. B return the title registration. Although Ms. A and Mr. B had not signed any formal written name-lending agreement, our attorneys used their experience handling similar cases to assert the following arguments and evidence to prove that a name-lending agreement did indeed exist between the parties, thereby allowing termination of the name-lending relationship and reclaiming the property.
The formation of a contract does not require a written document (Civil Code Article 153).
Ms. A and Mr. B had agreed to register the home under Mr. B's name for the purpose of accessing a “preferential mortgage rate,” clearly showing the motive for name lending.
The original title deed, the original purchase agreement, and the original loan agreement had always been kept by Ms. A (documents are ordinarily held by the lawful user). These originals were presented in court by our attorneys.
The down payment, renovation costs, and mortgage payments were all made by Ms. A, supported by related financial records.
All necessary expenses for living and managing the property—including water, electricity, gas, telephone, internet, management fees, house tax, and land tax—were all paid entirely by Ms. A, supported by payment receipts.
Through the above evidence, counsel proved the existence of a name-lending agreement between Ms. A and Mr. B. Based on Civil Code Article 549, the agreement could then be terminated. Pursuant to Code Article 541 Paragraph 2 and Article 179, Ms. A further demanded that Mr. B transfer ownership of the property back to her due to termination and unjust enrichment.
District Court Judgment: Plaintiff Prevails
Our litigation strategy successfully secured a favorable judgment for Ms. A. The court rendered the following key findings: “The disputed property was renovated at Ms. A's expense, the related equipment was purchased by Ms. A, and both the down payment and loan installments were fully paid by Ms. A. Management fees, land taxes, and house taxes were also paid by Ms. A. These records substantiate Ms. A's claim that she has managed, used, and benefited from the property since its acquisition, which aligns with the facts and should be accepted. Additionally, the original title deed, purchase contract, and loan agreement are currently held by Ms. A. Although Mr. B argued that Ms. A secretly stole these originals, Ms. A denied the claim, and according to the rule: ‘A party asserting facts beneficial to themselves bears the burden of proof (Code of Civil Procedure Article 277).
There are normal and abnormal states of affairs; asserting a normal state requires no proof, while asserting an abnormal state does.’ This principle is supported by Supreme Court Civil Judgments 86-Tai-Shang-891and 105-Tai-Jian-Shang-16. Document originals being held by their rightfulis the norm; possession by an unauthorized person through theft is abnormal. Thus, as Mr. B asserts that Ms. A stole the originals, he bears the burden of proving this unlawful act. He has provided no evidence to support this claim; therefore, his argument is unconvincing. Ms. A's assertion that she held the original documents since the initial purchase is credible.
Furthermore, real estate is highly valuable, and any carelessness in handling ownership documents could lead to significant financial loss. Therefore, when handling real estate transactions, the public generally acts with extreme caution. The title deed is the key document evidencing ownership and is required for buying, selling, or mortgaging property. Under common practice, if the true owner loans their name to someone for property registration, even without a written name-lending contract, they would ordinarily keep the title deed themselves to protect their ownership. Because Ms. A holds the title deed and all major transaction documents, and because Mr. B cannot reasonably explain why she possesses them, the doubt as to whether Mr. B is truly the owner is substantial… Based on all evidence, Ms. A’s claim that Mr. B is not the true owner but merely the registered name holder under a name-lending arrangement is credible.
Therefore, Ms. A’s notice of termination of the name-lending agreement through service of the civil complaint is effective. After termination of the agreement, Mr. B is obligated to return ownership of the property to Ms. A. Ms. A, by applying 民Civil Code Article 541 Paragraph 2(post-termination obligations of an agency relationship) and Article 179(unjust enrichment), is justified in demanding that Mr. B transfer the disputed property back to her.”
Registering property under another person's name may stem from trust or financial considerations, but reclaiming it often involves great difficulty. The above case is shared for reference by those facing similar situations.
Remember: Protecting your assets is always the top priority. When handling major property transactions, act with caution and ensure every step has legal protection. If you encounter related issues, seeking assistance from a professional attorney is strongly recommended.
Further Reading：How to return inheritance disputes after the death of a famous person?