News Center

Real Estate Perspective | Based solely on the Collective Land Own Certificate, is the owner of the land contained in the certificate necessarily recognized as the owner of the land?

Published:

2023-03-06

According to the Constitution, China's land is under public ownership, that is, it is divided into state ownership (I. e., all people) and collective ownership according to the main body of the owner. Article 12 of the Land Administration Law stipulates that the registration of land ownership and use rights shall be carried out in accordance with the laws and administrative regulations on real estate registration. The ownership and use right of land registered according to law shall be protected by law and shall not be infringed upon by any unit or individual. It can be seen that the "the People's Republic of China Collective Land Ownership Certificate" is a legal certificate for collective land owners to have the right to possess, benefit and dispose of collective land in accordance with the law. Then, in the lawsuit, can the people's court identify the land owner as the land owner simply based on the "Collective Land Ownership Certificate"? We will make a specific analysis through a case below. Relevant 1. Cases and Analysis [(2021) Lu xing Zai No. 67]] 1. Brief facts of the case Beilongwan Village is composed of six villagers' groups evolved from six production teams during the former people's commune. Since the land reform, the land used by the six groups has been fixed and unchanged. The implementation of household joint production contract in 1993 has not broken the land boundary of each group (former production team), but the farmers are the household joint production contract signed with Beilongwan Village Committee. Around 1992, the land ownership certificates of the six groups were handled under the name of Beilongwan Village Committee, and the certificates were renewed in 2012. Beilongwan Village is still the owner of the certificate. In 2016, Shandong Province implemented the "13th Five-Year Plan" for poverty alleviation and relocation. According to the Shandong Provincial Government Lu Zheng Zi [2016] No. 83 document, the relevant county (district) government is the main body and responsible body of the relocation work. Responsible for the implementation of relocation projects within the jurisdiction. On October 12, 2016, the Beilongwan Village Committee and the Laoyu Village Committee signed the Land Requisition Agreement for the Remote Poverty Alleviation and Relocation Project of Laoyu Village, which agreed that the Laoyu Village Committee would requisition the land of Beilongwan Village for the construction of the Laoyu Village. Relocation project for poverty alleviation. The land used by a villager group is within the scope of requisition as agreed in the agreement. After receiving the payment from the poverty alleviation and relocation working group, Beilongwan Village Committee only paid 2.6 million yuan to a villager group, and the balance was about 7.8 million yuan unpaid. The Beilongwan Village Committee said that the distribution plan had been approved by the villagers' representative meeting and a villagers' group did not approve it. 2, the court decision point of view. The Shandong Higher People's Court held that the focus of the dispute in this case is whether the prosecution of a villager group meets the statutory conditions for prosecution, and the focus of the review is whether the villager group has the qualifications of the plaintiff. Article 4 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Cases Involving Rural Collective Land stipulates that if the land use right holder or actual user is not satisfied with the administrative act of the administrative organ involving the use or actual use of collective land, he may file a lawsuit in his own name. In this case, a group of villagers is not the owner of the land ownership certificate, but it is the land user, but also the historical formation and evolution of the land user. In this regard, Beilongwan village committee to be recognized. According to the Opinions of the Ministry of Agriculture on Stabilizing and Improving the Contracting Relationship approved by the State Council on March 28, 1995, the collective farmers of group-level collective economic organizations (former production teams) can have collective land ownership, and when making land adjustments, it is strictly forbidden Forcibly change the relationship of land ownership, and the land already owned by the group-level collective economic organization (former production team) shall not be returned to the village. The Ministry of Land and Resources "Guotuzifa [2001] No. 359" document "Notice on Accelerating the Registration and Issuance of Collective Land Ownership in accordance with the Law" requires the department of land and resources to "determine the subject of collective land use rights in strict accordance with the provisions of the" Land Management Law ". It is clearly stipulated that" the boundaries of villagers' groups (original production teams) are not broken in any land household joint production contract, whether the contract is signed with the farmers in the name of the villagers' group or in the name of the village, the land should be confirmed to be collectively owned by the farmers of the villagers' group......" In this case, although the land ownership certificate is registered in the name of the Beilongwan Village Committee, the land involved in the certificate belongs to the actual ownership of the villagers' groups. Therefore, a certain villager group has an interest in the expropriation of this case, and a certain villager group has the qualification of the plaintiff and can file a lawsuit in this case in its own name. The original trial court only denied the land ownership of a certain villager group by holding the land ownership certificate with the Longwan Village Committee. It did not consider historical reasons and actual conditions. The facts were unclear and should be corrected. Ruled to revoke the 1. second instance administrative ruling, instructed the Jinan Railway Transport Court to continue the trial. 3. Analysis of referee rules (1) If the land-use right holder or the actual user is not satisfied with the administrative act of the administrative organ involving the use or actual use of the collective land, he may bring a lawsuit in his own name. (2) To determine the ownership of rural land, historical reasons and actual conditions should be considered. Although the land ownership certificate is registered in the name of the Beilongwan Village Committee, the land covered by the certificate belongs to the actual ownership of the village groups. Interpretation of 2. Law 1, establish the villagers' group litigation subject qualification. Article 3 of the Civil procedure Law stipulates that the provisions of this Law shall apply to the acceptance of civil lawsuits brought by citizens, legal persons, other organizations and between them because of property and personal relations. Article 48: Citizens, legal persons and other organizations may be parties to civil litigation. Legal persons shall be litigated by their legal representatives. Other organizations are litigated by their principal leaders. Article 11 of the Land Management Law stipulates that if the land collectively owned by farmers belongs to the collective ownership of the village farmers according to law, it shall be operated and managed by the village collective economic organization or the villagers' committee; if it has been collectively owned by farmers who have belonged to two or more rural collective economic organizations in the village, it shall be operated and managed by the rural collective economic organizations or villagers' groups in the village; From the perspective of judicial practice, in the spirit of the 2006 Supreme People's Court's ''Reply on How to Exercise the Litigation Rights of Villagers Group'', the villager group can be the subject of civil litigation. When the legitimate rights and interests of the village group are infringed by others, the villager group should use itself. A lawsuit is filed in the name of the villager group, and the villager group leader is the main person in charge. To sum up, the author believes that the villagers' group not only has certain property, but also has the right to operate and manage its own property by law. Therefore, the villagers' group belongs to the category of "other organizations" stipulated in Article 49 of the civil procedure law. 2, to determine the ownership of rural land, should consider historical reasons and the actual situation, comprehensive analysis to determine. In the historical evolution of China's rural collective economic organizations, there are mainly three periods: first, the period of cooperation, there are primary and high-level cooperatives; second, the period of people's communes, there are production teams, production brigades and communes; third, the period of economic cooperatives, after the rural reform abolished the people's communes and established the rural system, The original people's communes, production brigades and production teams were changed to townships, villages and villagers' groups. After the implementation of the two-tier management system based on the joint production contract responsibility system in rural areas, the villagers' group still exists. The six villager groups in Beilongwan Village evolved from the original six production teams. The implementation of land household joint production contract did not break the boundaries of the original production teams. The farmer collectives of each villager group inherited the collective land ownership of the original production teams. Article 3, paragraph 3, of the Organic Law of villagers' Committees stipulates that villagers' committees may set up several villagers' groups according to their living conditions and collective land ownership. The Ministry of Land and Resources "Guotuzifa [2001] No. 359" document "Notice on Accelerating the Registration and Issuance of Collective Land Ownership in accordance with the Law" requires the department of land and resources to "determine the subject of collective land use rights in strict accordance with the provisions of the" Land Management Law ". It is clearly stipulated that" the boundaries of villagers' groups (original production teams) are not broken in any land household joint production contract, whether the contract is signed with the farmers in the name of the villagers' group or in the name of the village, the land should be confirmed to be collectively owned by the farmers of the villagers' group......" 3. The rural land ownership certificate issued by the administrative organ is not necessarily accepted as valid evidence in the course of the court hearing. On the premise that there is sufficient evidence to overturn it, the people's court may directly reject the Land Ownership Certificate issued by the administrative organ. This breaks the shackles of judicial practice in judicial practice that "only administrative power must be adopted", and embodies the basic legal spirit of "taking facts as the basis and law as the criterion. Moreover, it also reduces the so-called "suspension of the trial of the case first, and the trial of the case will continue after the" land ownership certificate "is revoked. Administrative power confirmation documents, etc., ultimately belong to the category of evidence. Of course, the people's court has the right to screen and decide whether to adopt and use it. This is the power and duty of the trial judge granted by the law. In the current judicial practice, we are also pleased to see many excellent cases of "not only the top, not only the book. The Supreme People's Court (2019) Supreme Law Minzai No. 384 Civil Judgment embodies the following gist of the judgment: Supreme People's Court on Application<中华人民共和国民事诉讼法>的解释》第九十三条规定，已为人民法院发生法律效力的裁判所确认的事实，当事人无需举证证明。人民法院的生效裁判具有既判力，但该效力仅限于生效裁判的判项，对于“本院认为”部分的认定，如有证据可以推翻的，在后裁判不受在先裁判的影响，人民法院可以根据当事人举证情况做出独立认定。 </中华人民共和国民事诉讼法>

Relevant 1. Cases and Analysis [(2021) Lu xing Zai No. 67]]

1. Brief facts of the case

Beilongwan Village is composed of six villagers' groups evolved from six production teams during the former people's commune. Since the land reform, the land used by the six groups has been fixed and unchanged. The implementation of household joint production contract in 1993 has not broken the land boundary of each group (former production team), but the farmers are the household joint production contract signed with Beilongwan Village Committee.

Around 1992, the land ownership certificates of the six groups were handled under the name of Beilongwan Village Committee, and the certificates were renewed in 2012. Beilongwan Village is still the owner of the certificate.

In 2016, Shandong Province implemented the "13th Five-Year Plan" for poverty alleviation and relocation. According to the Shandong Provincial Government Lu Zheng Zi [2016] No. 83 document, the relevant county (district) government is the main body and responsible body of the relocation work. Responsible for the implementation of relocation projects within the jurisdiction.

On October 12, 2016, the Beilongwan Village Committee and the Laoyu Village Committee signed the Land Requisition Agreement for the Remote Poverty Alleviation and Relocation Project of Laoyu Village, which agreed that the Laoyu Village Committee would requisition the land of Beilongwan Village for the construction of the Laoyu Village. Relocation project for poverty alleviation. The land used by a villager group is within the scope of requisition as agreed in the agreement. After receiving the payment from the poverty alleviation and relocation working group, Beilongwan Village Committee only paid 2.6 million yuan to a villager group, and the balance was about 7.8 million yuan unpaid. The Beilongwan Village Committee said that the distribution plan had been approved by the villagers' representative meeting and a villagers' group did not approve it.

2, the court decision point of view.

The Shandong Higher People's Court held that the focus of the dispute in this case is whether the prosecution of a villager group meets the statutory conditions for prosecution, and the focus of the review is whether the villager group has the qualifications of the plaintiff. Article 4 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Cases Involving Rural Collective Land stipulates that if the land use right holder or actual user is not satisfied with the administrative act of the administrative organ involving the use or actual use of collective land, he may file a lawsuit in his own name. In this case, a group of villagers is not the owner of the land ownership certificate, but it is the land user, but also the historical formation and evolution of the land user. In this regard, Beilongwan village committee to be recognized. According to the Opinions of the Ministry of Agriculture on Stabilizing and Improving the Contracting Relationship approved by the State Council on March 28, 1995, the collective farmers of group-level collective economic organizations (former production teams) can have collective land ownership, and when making land adjustments, it is strictly forbidden Forcibly change the relationship of land ownership, and the land already owned by the group-level collective economic organization (former production team) shall not be returned to the village. The Ministry of Land and Resources "Guotuzifa [2001] No. 359" document "Notice on Accelerating the Registration and Issuance of Collective Land Ownership in accordance with the Law" requires the department of land and resources to "determine the subject of collective land use rights in strict accordance with the provisions of the" Land Management Law ". It is clearly stipulated that" the boundaries of villagers' groups (original production teams) are not broken in any land household joint production contract, whether the contract is signed with the farmers in the name of the villagers' group or in the name of the village, the land should be confirmed to be collectively owned by the farmers of the villagers' group......"

In this case, although the land ownership certificate is registered in the name of the Beilongwan Village Committee, the land involved in the certificate belongs to the actual ownership of the villagers' groups. Therefore, a certain villager group has an interest in the expropriation of this case, and a certain villager group has the qualification of the plaintiff and can file a lawsuit in this case in its own name. The original trial court only denied the land ownership of a certain villager group by holding the land ownership certificate with the Longwan Village Committee. It did not consider historical reasons and actual conditions. The facts were unclear and should be corrected. Ruled to revoke the 1. second instance administrative ruling, instructed the Jinan Railway Transport Court to continue the trial.

3. Analysis of referee rules

(1) If the land-use right holder or the actual user is not satisfied with the administrative act of the administrative organ involving the use or actual use of the collective land, he may bring a lawsuit in his own name.

(2) To determine the ownership of rural land, historical reasons and actual conditions should be considered. Although the land ownership certificate is registered in the name of the Beilongwan Village Committee, the land covered by the certificate belongs to the actual ownership of the village groups.

Interpretation of 2. Law

1, establish the villagers' group litigation subject qualification.

Article 3 of the Civil procedure Law stipulates that the provisions of this Law shall apply to the acceptance of civil lawsuits brought by citizens, legal persons, other organizations and between them because of property and personal relations. Article 48: Citizens, legal persons and other organizations may be parties to civil litigation. Legal persons shall be litigated by their legal representatives. Other organizations are litigated by their principal leaders.

Article 11 of the Land Management Law stipulates that if the land collectively owned by farmers belongs to the collective ownership of the village farmers according to law, it shall be operated and managed by the village collective economic organization or the villagers' committee; if it has been collectively owned by farmers who have belonged to two or more rural collective economic organizations in the village, it shall be operated and managed by the rural collective economic organizations or villagers' groups in the village;

From the perspective of judicial practice, in the spirit of the 2006 Supreme People's Court's ''Reply on How to Exercise the Litigation Rights of Villagers Group'', the villager group can be the subject of civil litigation. When the legitimate rights and interests of the village group are infringed by others, the villager group should use itself. A lawsuit is filed in the name of the villager group, and the villager group leader is the main person in charge.

To sum up, the author believes that the villagers' group not only has certain property, but also has the right to operate and manage its own property by law. Therefore, the villagers' group belongs to the category of "other organizations" stipulated in Article 49 of the civil procedure law.

2, to determine the ownership of rural land, should consider historical reasons and the actual situation, comprehensive analysis to determine.

In the historical evolution of China's rural collective economic organizations, there are mainly three periods: first, the period of cooperation, there are primary and high-level cooperatives; second, the period of people's communes, there are production teams, production brigades and communes; third, the period of economic cooperatives, after the rural reform abolished the people's communes and established the rural system, The original people's communes, production brigades and production teams were changed to townships, villages and villagers' groups. After the implementation of the two-tier management system based on the joint production contract responsibility system in rural areas, the villagers' group still exists. The six villager groups in Beilongwan Village evolved from the original six production teams. The implementation of land household joint production contract did not break the boundaries of the original production teams. The farmer collectives of each villager group inherited the collective land ownership of the original production teams.

Article 3, paragraph 3, of the Organic Law of villagers' Committees stipulates that villagers' committees may set up several villagers' groups according to their living conditions and collective land ownership.

The Ministry of Land and Resources "Guotuzifa [2001] No. 359" document "Notice on Accelerating the Registration and Issuance of Collective Land Ownership in accordance with the Law" requires the department of land and resources to "determine the subject of collective land use rights in strict accordance with the provisions of the" Land Management Law ". It is clearly stipulated that" the boundaries of villagers' groups (original production teams) are not broken in any land household joint production contract, whether the contract is signed with the farmers in the name of the villagers' group or in the name of the village, the land should be confirmed to be collectively owned by the farmers of the villagers' group......"

3. The rural land ownership certificate issued by the administrative organ is not necessarily accepted as valid evidence in the course of the court hearing.

On the premise that there is sufficient evidence to overturn it, the people's court may directly reject the Land Ownership Certificate issued by the administrative organ. This breaks the shackles of judicial practice in judicial practice that "only administrative power must be adopted", and embodies the basic legal spirit of "taking facts as the basis and law as the criterion. Moreover, it also reduces the so-called "suspension of the trial of the case first, and the trial of the case will continue after the" land ownership certificate "is revoked.

Administrative power confirmation documents, etc., ultimately belong to the category of evidence. Of course, the people's court has the right to screen and decide whether to adopt and use it. This is the power and duty of the trial judge granted by the law. In the current judicial practice, we are also pleased to see many excellent cases of "not only the top, not only the book. The Supreme People's Court (2019) Supreme Law Minzai No. 384 Civil Judgment embodies the following gist of the judgment: Supreme People's Court on Application<中华人民共和国民事诉讼法>Article 93 of the interpretation stipulates that the parties do not need to prove the facts confirmed by the legally effective judgment of the people's court. The effective judgment of the people's court has the power of res judicata, but the effect is limited to the judgment of the effective judgment. If there is evidence to overturn the determination of the part of the "court's opinion", the later judgment shall not be affected by the earlier judgment, and the people's court may make an independent determination according to the evidence provided by the parties.

Key words:

Viewpoint | Exit of investment in "famous stocks and real bonds" under the background of state-owned capital supervision

Viewpoint | (I) about the workers' congress

Viewpoint | Exit of investment in "famous stocks and real bonds" under the background of state-owned capital supervision

Viewpoint | (I) about the workers' congress