News and current affairs

Taipei City Councilor Zhong Xiaoping and his mother were recently accused by his second sister Zhong Yuanfeng of property disputes. Zhong Yuanfeng said that she invested in buying a property in Taiwan for her father to live in. She originally borrowed the property because she held a Hong Kong residence permit and did not have a Taiwan identity card. The name is registered under the mother's name. When Si Zhong Yuanfeng returned to Taiwan to live with her mother and younger brother after her divorce, she had a dispute with her younger brother and asked her mother to jointly register the property in her name. Unexpectedly, her mother refused. She subsequently filed a lawsuit and lost due to insufficient evidence.

Full news content:

https://www.mirrormedia.mg/story/20170320soc005

It is common in society for the actual owner to register his or her real estate in the name of a third party for reasons such as tax saving or getting out of property, but the relevant details of the registration relationship in the borrowed name are not stated in writing, resulting in subsequent inheritance, enforcement, or actual ownership. A dispute arises when a person requests return, especially when the famous person transfers the ownership of the real estate to a third party as the registered person without the consent of the borrowing person. What is the effect of the famous person disposing of the ownership of the real estate?

In response to the above question, there have been divergent opinions in the judgments of the Supreme Court of China in the past. Some believe that the behavior of celebrities is still subject to the right to sanction (see the Supreme Court’s 103 Taizi Civil Judgment No. 1518); some believe that in principle, the behavior is subject to the right. Punishment, except when the third party has malicious intent, is an unauthorized punishment (see the Supreme Court’s 100-year Taizi Judgment No. 2101); otherwise, it is deemed to be an unauthorized punishment (see the Supreme Court’s 1998-year Taizi Judgment No. 76) .

However, the latest resolution made by the Supreme Court at the 3rd Civil Court Meeting on February 4, 106, adopted the theory of "authority to dispose". The reason is briefly stated: "The registration deed of real estate in the name of a borrower is between the borrower and the celebrity. In a creditor's rights contract, according to the agreement between the lender and the lender to register the loan, the borrower usually has no right to manage, use, benefit from, or dispose of the property borrowed from the borrower. However, this is only an internal agreement between the lender and the borrower, and its validity is Not as good as a third party. Once the famous person is registered as the owner of the real estate, he shall have the right to dispose of the real estate if he transfers it to a third party." This shows that the Supreme Court, in order to ensure the safety of transactions and maintain the absolute effectiveness of public registration of real estate, requires that the borrower should bear the risks arising from a registered relationship in a borrowed name that is contrary to the appearance of public registration.

 In addition, in terms of criminal liability, if the registered person only lends his name and has no actual management or disposition of the subject matter of registration, and the person who actually possesses and manages it is still the person who borrowed the name, then the name person will regard himself as the owner. Unauthorized disposal of registered subject matter may constitute the crime of breach of trust under Article 342, Item 1 of the Criminal Law.