Judicial Determination Of Excluding Compulsory Enforcement Of Borrowing A Name To Buy A House

In recent years,due to reasons such as avoiding purchase restrictions,using loan incentives,and tax relief,the phenomenon of borrowing someone else’s name to buy a house has emerged endlessly.Due to the reasons for the inconsistency between the actual investor and the housing registrant,the legal relationship is particularly complex when it comes to the effectiveness of the agreement and the ownership of the disputed housing property rights.In particular,whether a borrower can request exclusion from enforcement by the applicant,and whether it protects the substantive interests of the borrower or ordinary creditors,is a controversial issue in academic and judicial practice.This article takes the enforcement objection lawsuit of outsiders in the case of Tian,Chen and Song as an example,starting from the analysis of the focus of the dispute,and discusses the validity of the borrowing agreement,the ownership of the disputed property rights,the nature of the civil rights enjoyed by the borrower,and whether the interests of the borrower can be excluded from enforcement.First of all,basing on clarifying the nature of the name borrowing agreement,this article starts from the reasons for the invalidity of civil legal acts,and believes that it is valid.Thirdly,basing on analyzing the rules for the change of real estate rights in China,this paper argues that real estate registration only has the presumptive effect of determining the ownership of property rights,the act of registration does not produce property rights.And factual real right have reasonable space for existence,and further determines that the borrower enjoys factual real right which can be opposed to the nominal rights of celebrities.Finally,on the basis of the principle of substantive fairness,substantive examination and penetrating trial thinking,this paper believes that the appearanceism only applicable to occasions where the right to immovable property is changed based on a legal act,and the applicant for enforcement is not a third party in the transaction relationship.And it does not have a specific trust interest in the registration of immovable property,and is not within the scope of reliance protection of the appearanceism.Moreover,it is believed that paying consideration and possession enhances the confrontation of anonymous rights,and that the attribution of celebrities should not be excessively demanded,and that the punishment for violating real estate policies should return to the field of public law.This article calls for the issuance of judicial interpretations on enforcement objections.This article proposes to examine whether the relationship of buying a house under a borrowed name is established from the four main points of signing and determining the validity of the borrowing agreement,contribution,possession,and proofs of ownership;Taking the explicit borrowing of celebrities’ interests as factual property rights + it can exclude enforcement as the adjudication path,weigh the interests between the two parties,and safeguard judicial justice.