1、 Basic facts of the case

The plaintiff (appellant) Yang Mouyu.

Defendant (appellant) Yang Moulai.

Defendant (original trial defendant) Yang Moulu.

Yang Moulu and Yang Moulai are related to Yang Mouyu's brother and sister, Yang Moulin (died on May 10, 2001) and Lu Moumou (died on March 3, 2004). Located in Fengtai District, Beijing ×× The owner of the right to use the homestead and the property owner of the five rooms above the ground in the north are Yang Moulin. Yang Moulai worked in Fengtai District, Beijing in 1998 ×× Three new south rooms have been approved for construction in the courtyard. In March 2000, the five northern rooms in the courtyard were renovated with the approval of the Huaxiang People's Government of Fengtai District, Beijing.

Yang Mouyu claims to be located in Fengtai District, Beijing ×× There are a total of five northern houses in the courtyard, with approval certificates from the village committee for homesteads and houses. The property belongs to my father Yang Moulin's inheritance and should be divided according to law. I only request to return to live in the house, but my second brother Yang Moulai does not agree and has no choice but to sue. I now request the court to legally file a lawsuit against Fengtai District, Beijing ×× Divide the property and order Yang to return the property that should be inherited by me.

Yang Moulai argued that three rooms in the east have been demolished, two rooms in the west, three rooms in the south, and five rooms in the north were all built by my wife and me, and should not be treated as an inheritance. Yang Moulin and Lu Moumou had dealt with the house before their death, and I fulfilled my obligation to support my parents. The house should belong to me, which does not agree with Yang Mouyu's lawsuit request.

Yang Moulu argued that I agree with Yang Mouyu's request to divide his parents' inheritance. I want one of the five northern rooms and I request to inherit my share.

2、 Review results

After trial, the original court held that the owner of the disputed homestead land and the property owners of the five northern houses on the ground in this case have been identified by relevant departments as Yang Moulin. As Yang Moulin has passed away, the five northern houses should belong to the inheritance of the deceased Yang Moulin. According to relevant provisions of the Inheritance Law, since Yang Moulin did not have a will or a legacy and maintenance agreement before his death, the disputed property in this case should be handled according to legal inheritance; Considering the actual living and living conditions of the heirs in this case, as well as their support for the elderly, the court will handle the disputed property in accordance with the law. The defense of defendant Yang Moulai lacks sufficient evidence to support it, and the court does not accept it. According to Article 5 of the Inheritance Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 2 of the Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Litigation, the judgment is that it is located in Fengtai District, Beijing ×× There are five houses in the north room, of which the first one on the east side of the north room belongs to the plaintiff Yang Mouyu; The first room on the west side of the north room belongs to the defendant Yang Moulu; The remaining three rooms in the middle of the North Room belong to the defendant Yang Moulai.

After the first instance judgment, Yang Moulai was dissatisfied and appealed, stating that the first instance court found the facts wrong. The five rooms in the North Room were jointly renovated by me and my wife, and my parents had already divided the house between me during their lifetime. Therefore, the five rooms in the North Room are the joint property of me and my wife, and not the inheritance of my parents. The lawsuits of Yang Mouyu and Yang Moulu have both exceeded the statutory statute of limitations. Therefore, the appeal requests the second instance court to revise the ruling and reject all of Yang Mouyu's litigation claims in accordance with the law. Yang Mouyu and Yang Moulu both agreed to the original verdict.

The court of second instance held that one of the focuses of the dispute in the second instance of this case is the issue of whether the five rooms in Beifang belong to the heritage of Yang Moulin and Lu Moumou. According to the confirmed facts, the five northern houses in dispute were renovated in March 2000 with the approval of the Huaxiang People's Government in Fengtai District, Beijing. The owner of the homestead land where the house is located was registered as Yang Moulin. After the original trial court inquired with the Huangtu Gang Village Committee, the village committee also recognized that the property rights of the five rooms in the disputed North Room belonged to Yang Moulin. As family members, Yang and others claimed to have contributed to the construction of the house, but considering that the five rooms of the disputed North House were renovated on the homestead and existing old house of Yang and Lu, the property rights of the disputed house should belong to Yang and Lu. The investment behavior of Yang Moulai should be recognized as an attachment to the parents' house, and this investment cannot directly change the ownership nature of the house. In the agreement presented by Yang to the original trial court, it was not explicitly stipulated that the renovated house should belong to Yang, but rather that all property should be inherited by Yang. Given that neither Yang Moulin nor Yang Mouyu signed and recognized the agreement, the original trial court found that the disputed property belongs to the inheritance of Yang Moulin and Lu Mouyu, which is not inappropriate and should be maintained. The second focus of the dispute in the second instance of this case is the issue of whether the original trial court has ruled that the share of the estate enjoyed by the parties is appropriate. Yang appealed and claimed that Yang and Lu had already acquired their parents' property through family separation, so they had no right to acquire the property in the disputed North Room 5. Although Yang Moulu acquired some of his parents' property before their death, it does not prevent him from inheriting their parents' inheritance in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Inheritance Law. The original trial court considered that Yang Moulai had made a significant contribution to the house and had a greater obligation to support his parents. When distributing the estate, it was appropriately distributed, and the distribution of the estate was legally justified and should be maintained. The third focus of controversy in the second instance of this case is whether Yang Mouyu's claim exceeds the statutory statute of limitations. According to the confirmed facts, after the parents of both parties passed away, they did not handle inheritance, so the disputed estate is in a state jointly owned by both parties. Yang Mouyu now requests inheritance, which does not exceed the statutory statute of limitations. Therefore, the appeal by Yang Moulai stating that Yang Mouyu's claim exceeds the statute of limitations will not be accepted. In summary, in accordance with Article 153, Paragraph 1 (1) of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment is to dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment.

3、 Evaluation opinions

The main legal focus of this case is the issue of determining the ownership of the renovated rural houses of the deceased. There are two views on this issue in judicial practice. The first view is that after the parents' original rural houses have been legally applied for renovation, the original houses have been demolished, and the original houses as heritage have been destroyed. The renovater obtains ownership of the renovated houses due to the new construction; The second viewpoint holds that the renovation of existing houses does not necessarily lead to the complete elimination of the original houses as heritage. A comprehensive consideration should be given to the ownership of the original houses and the right to use the homestead before the renovation, the applicant, implementer, source of renovation funds, and the condition of the houses before and after the renovation. The author agrees with the second viewpoint, mainly for the following reasons:

Firstly, the act of renovation does not necessarily constitute a new construction, thus allowing the renovater to acquire ownership of the renovated house. The process of renovation does not necessarily involve the complete demolition and reconstruction of the original house, but may also involve the use of the foundation of the original house or the use of building materials from the demolition of the original house. The renovation does not change the structure of the original house, and the renovated house contains the value of the original house. The renovation cannot necessarily constitute a new construction on the acquisition of property rights, Therefore, it is believed that the renovater has obtained full ownership of the renovated house.

Secondly, the renovater is not necessarily the owner of the renovated house. In the process of rural housing renovation, it is usually not an individual behavior but a family behavior, and there is often a situation where the renovation applicant, renovation implementer, and renovation investor are inconsistent. That is, a family member applies for renovation, and all or part of the family members jointly contribute and contribute to complete the renovation behavior. The renovated house should be considered as joint property according to the situation of renovation investment and contribution. If the deceased contributes or contributes during the renovation process, it should be recognized that the deceased is the co owner of the renovated house, and their share should be divided as inheritance.

In summary, the first viewpoint only applies when the applicant, implementer, and investor of the renovation are the same, without the participation of any heirs, and the renovated house does not include the value of any original house. The second perspective, which is more comprehensive in the social reality of rural areas in China, can better achieve the original intention of inheritance law and achieve better legal and social effects. Of course, the reason for the difficulty in identifying this issue is also due to China's special land system and the difficulties in registering rural housing property rights in reality. Further clarification of this issue requires continuous improvement in relevant laws and regulations.

Therefore, in this case, the five rooms of Beifang were renovated on the homestead and existing old house of Yang and Lu, and the property rights should belong to Yang and Lu. The investment behavior of Yang Moulai should be recognized as an attachment to the parents' house, and this investment cannot directly change the ownership nature of the house. The disputed property should be recognized as the inheritance of the heirs Yang Moulin and Lu Moumou, and when dividing it, consideration should be given to Yang Moulai's investment behavior and his excessive maintenance obligations.