Request for instructions on the case of Quanzhou pharmaceutical factory real estate dispute appeal
(1990 65438+February 23rd)
The Supreme People's Court:
The case of Chen Bowen v Quanzhou Pharmaceutical Factory's real estate dispute, which was tried by our hospital, is now asked for instructions on the case and handling opinions as follows due to the disagreement of the judicial committee:
Appellant: Quanzhou Pharmaceutical Factory.
Legal Representative: Fu, director of Quanzhou Pharmaceutical Factory.
Authorized Agent: Weng Zhixian, lawyer of Licheng District Law Firm in Quanzhou.
Authorized Agent: Wang Meiqiong, lawyer of Licheng District Law Firm in Quanzhou.
Appellee: Also known as Chen, male, 69 years old, Filipino, living in Malaya, Philippines for business.
Authorized Agent: Chen Bocheng (brother of Chen Bowen), male, 54 years old, an employee of Quanzhou Agricultural Machinery Factory, living at No.2 Luozhu Lane, Licheng District.
Authorized Agent: Zheng Xinzhi, lawyer of Fujian Law Firm.
Cause of action: housing ownership dispute.
The litigation house is located at No.5 Jidong Lane, Licheng District, Quanzhou City. It is a mixed civil structure bungalow with an area of about 260 square meters. The appellee Chen Bowen purchased it in March 1937. The buyer on the deed of sale, the owner on the land ownership certificate issued by the Kuomintang government in 1944, and the owner recorded in Quanzhou household register after liberation are all Chen, and the place name on Quanzhou cadastral map is "Chen Zuqi". As Chen Bowen lived in the Philippines for a long time, the disputed house was taken care of by his father, Chen Zuqi (deceased). 1950, Xinzhong Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. was established by private fund-raising partnership. Because there was no factory building, Chen, the then chairman of the cooperative and his cousin, rented the opposite litigation room-No.5 Jidong Lane. Due to the needs of production and operation, Xinzhong Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. obtained the consent of Chen Zuqi to rebuild No.5 house in Jidong Lane. After the renovation, Chen Zuqi proposed to return the house unconditionally after renting 10 years, while the pharmaceutical company proposed to return it after 20 years. Due to disagreement between the two sides, the negotiation failed to be reached. 19541February, xinzhong pharmaceutical co., ltd, Quanzhou laofan Wan Zhi Shen Ying oil mill and Quanzhou kaiyuan temple qiushuixuan pharmaceutical factory jointly established the state-owned xinzhong pharmaceutical factory. Workshop No.5 in Mindong Lane, as the property of Xinzhong Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., was incorporated into Xinzhong Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. as the fixed assets of Quanzhou Xinzhong Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., as evidenced by the insurance policy of the factory and the Detailed Account of Fixed Assets. At the end of 1956, the state-owned Xinzhong pharmaceutical factory was renamed Quanzhou pharmaceutical factory.
1July 1956 to1September 1965, in the name of Chen, Chen Zuqi entered into three agreements with the pharmaceutical factory on the property rights, rent and tax distribution of Building 5 in Jidong Lane. First, on July 20, 1956,/kloc-0, it was agreed that the factory would rent Building No.5 in Jidong Lane. Because there were some old buildings in the building, the land was owned by Chen through negotiation, and the property rights pharmacy accounted for 80% and Chen accounted for 20%. 2. The lease agreement was signed on 1957129 October, and the rental income was 73.83% for the pharmaceutical company, 26. 17% for the pharmaceutical company, 80% for the real estate tax and house repair fee, and 20% for the pharmaceutical company. Third, the agreement of1September, 1965 15 clearly states that 80% of the property rights and buildings are owned by Chen, 20% by Chen, 80% by Chen for house renovation, 20% by Chen, 70.8 1% by the allocation company, and 29./kloc. The property tax of pharmaceutical factory is 80%, the property tax of pharmaceutical factory is 20%, and Fangshan tax of pharmaceutical factory is in Chen's charge.
19571February to 1983, No.5 Jidong Lane was leased to Jiehua Workshop, Quanzhou Musical Instrument Factory, Quanzhou Stationery Factory, Quanzhou Shoes Factory and Pharmaceutical Factory. Chen Zuqi signed lease contracts with the above-mentioned manufacturers in the name of Chen (note: 197 1 year from March to 198 1 year1February, the house was under the unified management of Quanzhou Housing Management Bureau and rented out).
198 1 year 1 February, Quanzhou Office for Implementing Private Housing Policy informed Quanzhou Shoes Factory and Xu Weijuan that starting from 1982 1 month1day, No.5 house in Jidong Lane will be returned to the owner for self-management. 1983 1 month, the office of the leading group for the implementation of private saving policy in Quanzhou notified Quanzhou Shoe Factory with a letter of "Quanfangluo (83) No.0 1No." and copied it to Quanzhou Pharmaceutical Factory and Xu Weijuan, and corrected the notice of "Quanfangluo Zi No.00042", which read: "No.5 foundation in Mindong Lane. The property right of the house is handled by Quanzhou Pharmaceutical Factory and the original landowner Xu Weijuan through consultation. "
1September 1987, Chen Boen took the house as his own, and his father entered into a production agreement with others in his name to rent or rebuild the house without authorization, which was really improper. Moreover, his father was forced by the situation and acted against his will, so he sued Quanzhou Intermediate People's Court and demanded to take back the house. Quanzhou Pharmaceutical Factory argued that the former Xinzhong Pharmaceutical Company rented a base from Chen Boen to build a factory. 1955, the factory was transformed from a public-private partnership into a joint venture production material, and it has been used as a fixed asset of the factory for more than 30 years.
Quanzhou Intermediate People's Court held that No.5 Mindong Lane was owned by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's father signed the Property Rights Change Agreement with Quanzhou Pharmaceutical Factory in the name of the plaintiff. The pharmaceutical factory (factory) knows that the agreement with the plaintiff's father is not the property owner and is invalid, allowing the plaintiff to close the house. 1July 22, 988, it was decided that the disputed house was owned by Chen Bowen, and Chen Bowen paid 9,320 yuan for house decoration to the pharmaceutical factory. Quanzhou pharmaceutical factory should be responsible for vacating the house and returning it to Chenbo management within one year after the judgment takes effect.
After the judgment of the first instance, the pharmaceutical company refused to accept it and filed an appeal. The reason for the appeal is that the owner of Xinzhong Pharmaceutical leased land from Chen Bowen to build houses, and the disputed land was acquired in 1937. At that time, the plaintiff was only 15 years old, had no full capacity, and could not have the economic strength to buy land. According to the national public-private partnership policy, she obtained the house herself and paid dividends to the shareholders of the former New Chinese Medicine Society.
The case was studied by the judicial committee, and it was agreed that the property right of the disputed house was originally owned by Chen Bowen. However, there were different views on the validity of the property right, rent and tax agreement concluded by Chen Zuqi with the pharmaceutical company (agency) in the name of Chen Bowen. The first opinion is that although Chen Bowen returned to China after 1980 and claimed the property right of the disputed house, his father, Chen Zuqi, punished the house in 1950, and Chen Bowen should be aware of this situation and did not raise any objection for a long time. The second opinion is that it is impossible to determine whether Chen Boen knew about the disposal of the property 80 years ago. Even if Chen Boen knew, his father's behavior as a non-property owner was not explicitly ratified by Chen Boen. Therefore, the agreement should be deemed invalid and the judgment of the first instance was not improper, and it is intended to be maintained.