When the father was alive, he reached an oral gift agreement with his daughter and went through the procedures for changing the name of the property, which is valid!

Case number

(2021) Liao14 Min Zhong No. 446 (cases from the judgment document network, all pseudonyms)

Litigation claims of first instance

Male A and Male B filed a lawsuit with the court of first instance: 1. Confirm that the oral gift of 150,000 yuan worth of real estate in Room 102 between Father A and defendant A woman is invalid; 2. Confirm that the name change of the property of father A and defendant A woman handled by defendant J Company is invalid; 3. Confirm that the "Contract for the Sale and Purchase of Commercial Housing" signed by the third party L Company and the defendant A woman is invalid. 4. The litigation costs in this case shall be borne by the above-mentioned defendants.

Facts were determined in the first instance

A was the father of the plaintiff and defendant and died on October 23, 2015. The plaintiff and defendant's mother died of illness on 8 January 1993.

Father A was an employee of Company J before his death. In 2013, when she acquired a 102-room building in her unit, defendant A claimed that because her father had donated the building to A woman by verbal donation, and the defendant J Company handled the name change and transfer procedures for her on September 26, 2013, and the defendant A paid a change fee of 100 yuan.

A woman signed a "contract for the sale and purchase of commercial housing" with a third party, company L, and a seller: company L. On December 3, 2015, A woman applied for a real estate registration ownership certificate at the real estate registration center, the content of which is: "Owner: A woman, co-owner: none, 8, registration time: 2015-12-03, located: room 102, construction area: 38.43 square meters." The registration is based on the Contract for the Sale and Purchase of Commercial Housing.

The court of first instance decided

The court of first instance held that the procedures for the donation of housing must be handled in accordance with the following procedures: (1) the donor and the recipient sign a written contract for the donation of the house, that is, the donation letter; (2) the notarization; (3) the registration of the transfer of ownership of the house.

The invalidity of a donation contract shall be in the following circumstances: 1. A contract concluded by one party by means of fraud or coercion harms the interests of the State; 2. Violating the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations; 3. Damage to the social public interest; 4. Cover up illegal purposes in a legal form; 5. Malicious collusion or harm to the interests of the state, the collective or a third party; 6. The donor exercised the right of revocation.

The form of the gift contract is divided into: oral form, written form, notarized form. Where a party has the responsibility to provide evidence to prove the facts on which its own litigation claims are based or to refute the other party's litigation claims, and if there is no evidence or the evidence is insufficient to prove the parties' factual claims, the party with the burden of proof shall bear the consequences.

In this case, the plaintiff claimed that the 102-room building belonged to father A's former property, because the property was registered at the Real Estate Registration Center on December 3, 2015 and registered in the name of defendant A's daughter, who claimed that the acquisition was caused by father A's oral donation to defendant A's daughter. Moreover, the oral donation housing contract between father A and daughter A has been confirmed by his unit and the defendant J Company and has gone through the formalities of changing the name and transferring the house.

Based on this case, the donor of the disputed building is father A, the recipient is daughter A, and the method of donation is oral gift. Because the dispute in this case is a donation of housing, according to the relevant provisions, the donor's father and daughter A should sign a written contract for the donation of the house, that is, a letter of donation, and go through the notarization, and then go through the registration procedures for the transfer of ownership of the house. However, the oral donation between father A and daughter A does not comply with the relevant provisions and infringes on the legitimate rights and interests of the plaintiff, so the oral gift contract between father A and daughter A should be invalid. Other litigation claims against the plaintiff are not within the scope of the case, and rights will be claimed separately after the case takes effect. The defense opinion raised by defendant A is insufficiently evidenced and is not accepted by this court.

Accordingly, the judgment is as follows: First, the contract for the oral gift of the property in Room 102 between Father A and defendant A's daughter is confirmed to be invalid. 2. Reject the other litigation claims of the plaintiffs, Male A and Male B.

The appellant claimed

Facts and Reasons for Woman A's Appeal: The first-instance judgment erroneously applied the law. Article 36 of the "Contract Law of the People's Republic of China" stipulates: "Where laws, administrative regulations provide or the parties agree to conclude a contract in writing, and the parties do not adopt written form but one party has already performed its main obligations, and the other party accepts it, the contract shall be formed."

In this case, although the donation of the house involved in the case was not in writing, the appellant went through the relevant registration procedures and accepted the gratuitous gift from his father before his death by actual behavior, and the donation contract between the two parties was formed. Moreover, in this case, there was no infringement of the legitimate rights and interests of the state, the collective, or a third party, and there was no statutory invalidity as stipulated in the Contract Law. The appellant's father donated all his property to the appellant before his death, which is a true expression of intent and is legal and valid.

The first-instance judgment that an oral gift contract is invalid is entirely an error in the application of law. Therefore, the second-instance people's court is requested to accurately apply the law, revoke the first-instance judgment and reject the appellee's first-instance litigation claims, so as to safeguard the appellant's lawful rights and interests.

The appellee argues

Man A and Man B argued that the facts found in the first instance were clear, the law was correct, the appellant claimed that the oral gift was a fact without any evidence, that the existence of the gift was based on evidence, and that the appellant arbitrarily interpreted the validity of the gift in only one side of the word, harming the legitimate rights and interests of other legal heirs.

The donated real estate should be the property rights owned by the donor, and the law stipulates that the house has no right to donate before the property ownership is obtained, which is also a violation of the provisions of the Civil Code.

The court of second instance decided

The court of second instance held that in this case, although Father A did not sign a written gift contract with Daughter A before his death, Company J stated that it was a formality for the transfer of the name of the house at the request of Father A and Daughter A. Before the death of father A, A daughter and her father A jointly went through the name change procedures, and signed a commercial housing sale and purchase contract with the company in her own name, the above series of acts can be presumed that A father has donated his real estate to A woman before her death, A woman accepted the gift, and the donation contract between the two parties was established and came into effect. Male A and B's assertive act of donating is invalid, and this move should be proved that the current male A and B failed to provide evidence to prove that the donation contract was invalid, so they should bear the adverse consequences of failing to adduce evidence.

In summary, the appeal request made by Woman A is upheld. The error in the application of law in the original judgment shall be corrected. Pursuant to article 170, paragraph 1, item (2) of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:

1. Revoke the Civil Judgment of the Lianshan District People's Court of Huludao City (2020) Liao 1402 Min Chu No. 3601;

2. Reject the litigation claims of Male A and Male B.