First, keywords: housing ownership, housing use rights, possession and protection
1. Typical case:
Lao Liu rented two public houses in this city. Due to family relations and historical reasons, Lao Liu entered into an agreement with his relative Lao Wang's family, stipulating that the public housing should be demolished, and Lao Liu only enjoyed the compensation for demolition, and Lao Wang's family could live permanently before the demolition. Subsequently, the Lao Wang family moved their hukou into public houses and lived for a long time. After more than ten years, the two sides were hostile, and Lao Wang sued Lao Liu to the court, demanding confirmation that he had the right to live and use the house involved. Lao Liu argued that the above agreement was obviously unfair, and he was the lessee of the house involved, and did not agree with the Lao Wang family to continue to use the house involved.
2. The Court ruled that:
After trial, the court held that a legally established contract is legally binding on the parties, and the parties should perform their obligations as agreed. In this case, Lao Liu signed an agreement with Lao Wang's family to confirm that Lao Wang's family has the right to use the house involved. Therefore, the Lao Wang family can live and use in the house involved. Although Lao Liu argued that the agreement between the two parties was obviously unfair, he did not provide sufficient evidence. Accordingly, the court finally ruled that Lao Wang's family had the right to live and use the house involved.
Second, the main points of understanding the law:
1. Does Lao Wang have the right to live in other people's homes? Article 368 of the Civil Code stipulates that the right of residence shall be established free of charge, unless otherwise agreed by both parties. Where the right of residence is established, it shall apply to the registration authority for registration of the right of residence. The right of residence is established when registering. Therefore, the right of residence only exists through registration. In this case, the residence right system was not introduced when the two parties signed the contract, and it was not registered after the establishment of the residence right system. Therefore, the right that Lao Wang enjoys is not the right of residence.
2. Why did Lao Wang get the support of the court when he lived in Lao Liu's house?
According to the law, a legally established contract is binding on both parties. Although Lao Wang lives in Lao Liu's house, this is based on the contract he signed with Lao Liu. The reason for signing the contract in this way is that both parties consider the blood relationship and historical reasons. In view of this, the court finally decided to support Lao Wang's petition.
3. What is obviously unfair? Why can I give my house away for free and get protection?
Article 151 of the Civil Code stipulates that if one party takes advantage of the other party's danger and lacks judgment, resulting in obviously unfair when a civil juristic act is established, the injured party has the right to request the people's court or an arbitration institution to cancel it. The above content is the system of obviously unfair stipulated in the Civil Code. If it constitutes a obviously unfair in the legal sense, the injured party may exercise the right of cancellation. According to this regulation, obviously unfair's system protects those who are in a dangerous state and lack judgment, which leads to untrue expression of will and ultimately suffers heavy losses. In addition, in order to avoid the long-term ambiguity of legal relations and affect the security of transactions, the law also limits the exercise period of this right of revocation. In this case, Lao Liu did not provide evidence to prove that he was in a dangerous state or lacked judgment when signing the contract, and Lao Wang lived in the house involved for a long time after signing the contract, so Lao Liu's claim about obviously unfair was obviously not supported by law.