Appeal Dismissed in CNY 20,000 House Sale Dispute
The Central China City Intermediate People’s Court has upheld a lower court ruling in a dispute over a house property, rejecting a claim by Mr. Peng that the arrangement with his brother-in-law, Mr. Wang, was a rental agreement rather than a sale. The court found insufficient evidence to support Mr. Peng’s claim and confirmed that the parties had entered into an oral sale contract for CNY 20,000. The judgment marks the final resolution of a family disagreement that had persisted for over a decade.
Mr. Peng and Mr. Wang are related by marriage, with Mr. Peng being the older brother of Mr. Wang’s wife. In June 2000, Mr. Peng acquired a property that had previously belonged to a local textile company in Central China City. Mr. Peng later expressed an intention to sell the house, and Mr. Wang approached him to discuss a purchase. The two men agreed orally that Mr. Wang would buy the property for CNY 20,000. Mr. Wang paid the full amount, and Mr. Peng handed over the property title deed. Mr. Wang has lived in the house ever since. No written contract was signed, and the title was never transferred officially. Mr. Peng later claimed the transaction was a lease and demanded that Mr. Wang vacate the property and pay overdue rent of CNY 3,000.
During the trial, Mr. Peng presented no documentary evidence to support his claim of a rental relationship. Mr. Wang, however, submitted sworn statements from three relatives—Mr. Peng’s own relatives as well as Mr. Wang’s wife—confirming that the parties had agreed on a sale. The witnesses testified that Mr. Peng had accepted the purchase price and delivered the title deed, which is inconsistent with a typical lease arrangement. Mr. Peng’s legal representatives attended the hearing, as did Mr. Wang’s lawyer from a law firm in Central China City. The court examined all evidence and noted that the title deed being held by the buyer for many years strongly pointed to a sale.
The trial court ruled that Mr. Peng had failed to meet his burden of proof under Article 64 of the Civil Procedure Law. The court found that the evidence from the witnesses, combined with the long-term possession of the title deed by Mr. Wang, established a valid oral sale agreement. The court accordingly dismissed Mr. Peng’s request for eviction and rent. Mr. Peng appealed, arguing that the facts were incorrectly determined and that the law had been misapplied. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no error in the original judgment.
Under Chinese law, an oral contract for the sale of real property can be binding if the parties have performed their obligations and there is sufficient evidence of mutual consent. Here, the payment of the full purchase price, the transfer of the title deed, and Mr. Wang’s uninterrupted occupation for over a decade all indicated a completed sale. The court emphasized that Mr. Peng’s failure to provide any credible evidence of a rental agreement, such as a written lease or rent receipts, undermined his case. The appellate court therefore affirmed the lower court’s decision, citing the legal standard for appellate review under Article 153 of the Civil Procedure Law.
This case serves as a reminder that informal family transactions, especially involving real estate, can lead to prolonged disputes when no written agreement exists. While oral contracts may be enforceable under certain circumstances, courts will rely heavily on conduct and circumstantial evidence. The judgment highlights the importance of documenting property transfers in writing and registering them with the authorities to avoid future litigation. Both parties bore their own legal costs, with Mr. Peng ordered to pay the appeal fee.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.