Perspective | Can a parking space purchaser exclude enforcement based on the provisions of Articles 28 and 29 of the "Regulations on Enforcement Objections and Review"?

"Regulations of the Supreme People's Court on the Seizure, Detention, and Freezing of Property in Civil Enforcement by People's Courts"

Article 2: People's courts may seize, impound, or freeze movable property in the possession of the judgment debtor, as well as real estate registered under the judgment debtor's name, specific movable property, and other property rights.

"Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Execution Objections and Review Cases by People's Courts"

Article 28: In the execution of monetary claims, if the purchaser raises an objection to real estate registered under the name of the judgment debtor and the objection meets the following conditions—and their rights can be exempted from execution— the people's court shall grant support.

(1) A legally valid written sales contract was signed before the people's court imposed the seizure;

(II) Having legally possessed the immovable property prior to its seizure by the People's Court;

(III) The full purchase price has been paid, or a portion of the price has been paid as agreed in the contract, with the remaining balance to be delivered for enforcement as required by the People's Court;

(IV) The transfer registration was not completed due to reasons unrelated to the buyer.

Article 29: In the enforcement of monetary claims, if a purchaser raises an objection to a commodity housing property registered under the name of the real estate development enterprise being enforced against, and the objection meets the following conditions and the purchaser's rights can be exempted from enforcement, the people's court shall grant support.

(1) A legally valid written sales contract was signed before the people's court imposed the seizure;

(2) The purchased commercial housing is intended for residential use, and the buyer does not already own any other residential property.

(III) The amount already paid exceeds 50 percent of the total contract price as agreed upon.

"Minutes of the National Conference on Civil and Commercial Trials of Courts" (Nine Civil Minutes)

Article 125: [Third Parties Who Are Consumers of Commercial Housing] In practice, when consumers purchase commercial housing directly from real estate developers, they often fail to promptly complete the property transfer procedures. If the real estate developer is subject to compulsory enforcement due to outstanding debts, and the people’s court takes enforcement measures against the commercial housing—though still registered under the developer’s name but already sold to consumers—these consumers typically raise objections to the enforcement, seeking to exclude the forced execution. In response, Article 29 of the "Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Execution Objections and Review Cases by People’s Courts" stipulates that if the following conditions are met, the court should support the consumer’s claims: First, a legally valid written sales contract must have been signed before the property was sealed by the people’s court; second, the purchased housing must be intended for residential use, and the buyer must not own any other residential property; and third, the payment made must exceed 50 percent of the total contract price agreed upon. The people’s court will then proceed with the trial. Enforcement Objection Lawsuit In cases, this provision may be applied by reference.

Article 126: [The Relationship Between the Rights of Commodity Housing Consumers and Mortgage Rights] According to Article 1 and Article 2 of the "Supreme People's Court’s Reply on Issues Concerning the Priority Right to Payment for Construction Project Costs," the rights of commodity housing consumers who have paid all or most of the purchase price take precedence over the mortgage rights held by mortgagees. Therefore, if a mortgagee applies for enforcement against commodity housing registered under the name of a real estate development enterprise but already sold to consumers, and the consumer raises an objection to the enforcement, the people’s court shall uphold such objection in accordance with the law. However, it is particularly important to note that this provision is an exceptional measure designed to protect consumers’ right to survival in response to irregularities commonly seen in the pre-sale practices of commodity housing. As such, its application must be strictly limited to these specific circumstances, avoiding any attempt to broaden its scope. Otherwise, it could undermine the fundamental principle that mortgage rights inherently enjoy priority. Therefore, Here, commodity housing consumers should be limited exclusively to those who meet the criteria outlined in Article 125 of this memorandum. If the buyer does not qualify as a commodity housing consumer under Article 125 of this memorandum but instead falls under a standard residential property purchase contract, the aforementioned handling rules shall not apply.

Article 127: [General Purchasers Who Are Not Homebuyers] In the context of enforcement actions involving monetary claims, if a general purchaser—who is not a homebuyer—raises an objection against real estate registered under the name of the judgment debtor, seeking to exclude the property from execution, the "Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Execution Objections and Review Cases by People's Courts" Article 28 stipulates that such objections shall be upheld in accordance with the law if they meet the following conditions: 1. A lawful and valid written sales contract was signed before the property was sealed by the People's Court; 2. The general purchaser had already legally occupied the property prior to the court’s sealing order; 3. The full purchase price has been paid, or a portion of the price has been paid as agreed in the contract, with the remaining balance to be delivered for execution as required by the People's Court; 4. The failure to complete the transfer registration was not due to reasons attributable to the purchaser themselves. When hearing cases involving disputes over execution objections, People's Courts may refer to and apply this provision accordingly.

"Supreme People's Court Reply on Issues Concerning the Protection of Rights of Commodity Housing Consumers"

Article 2: If a consumer purchasing commercial housing for residential purposes has paid the full purchase price and now seeks to have their right to claim delivery of the property take precedence over construction project payment claims, mortgage rights, and other creditor claims, the people's court shall grant such request. However, if a consumer who has only paid part of the purchase price manages to actually pay the remaining balance before the conclusion of first-instance court debate, the provisions of the preceding paragraph shall apply.

Viewpoint 1: Although parking spaces differ from residential properties, they legally exist as an integral part of such properties, serving as a necessary extension and enhancement of the residential functions provided by the housing units. Under certain conditions, this aligns with the special protective status granted to "residential properties" purchased by consumers under Article 29 of the Provisions on Enforcement Objections and Review, thereby safeguarding the essential living rights associated with these spaces.

Reference Case 1: Supreme People's Court (2022) Sup. Ct. Civ. App. No. 86

Judicial Perspective: Although parking spaces and garages within a residential development differ from standard residential properties, they legally exist as ancillary facilities tied to these properties. Their primary function is to meet the housing needs of residents in the community, serving as a necessary extension and enhancement of the living amenities provided by the residential units. In today’s society, where private cars have increasingly become an everyday mode of transportation for ordinary families, the right to use parking spaces is closely linked to homeowners' residential rights and inherently addresses essential daily living needs. For residents of a residential community, having an adequate number of parking spaces and garages directly relates to their quality of life—and thus constitutes a vital interest that should be safeguarded by law. In this case, the parking space purchased by the homeowner in question was an essential amenity integral to the residential unit they acquired. Since the purchase, the space has been consistently used for vehicle parking without interruption. Therefore, it can be concluded that the parking space holds the same special protective status under Article 29 of the "Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Execution Objections and Review Cases," which affords particular protection to "residential properties purchased by consumers" as part of their basic living rights.

In case No. (2022) Supreme People's Court Min Zhong No. 91, the court's view aligns with the aforementioned opinion.

Reference Case 2: Supreme People's Court (2023) Sup. Ct. Civ. Shen No. 1778

In this case, the court emphasized that Article 29 of the "Provisions on Enforcement Objections and Review" protects consumers of commercial housing. For purchasers of parking spaces to benefit from the exclusion of enforcement stipulated in this article, they must possess the "consumer of commercial housing" status required by the provision.

Ruling Perspective: Article 29 of the "Provisions on Enforcement Objections and Review" applies to consumers purchasing commercial residential properties. However, in the related case, Liu claimed ownership of three residential units and two parking spaces, which clearly does not qualify as a commercial residential property consumer. Moreover, Liu failed to provide evidence demonstrating that the purchase price had been paid. Therefore, Liu does not meet the conditions stipulated in Article 29 of the "Provisions on Enforcement Objections and Review." Even if reviewed under Article 28 of the same provisions, Liu remains unable to prove payment of the purchase price, thus still failing to satisfy the criteria outlined in Article 28. Consequently, Liu’s claim cannot be upheld.

Viewpoint 2: Although parking spaces are primarily intended for use by residents of the community, they have not yet reached a level that affects residents' right to survival. Therefore, they cannot be classified as residential housing and do not fall under the scope of adjustment outlined in Article 29 of the "Provisions on Enforcement Objections and Review."

Reference case: Supreme People's Court (2019) Sup. Ct. Civ. Shen No. 3349

Judicial Perspective: Article 29 of the "Provisions on Enforcement Objections and Review" is designed to safeguard consumers' fundamental right to survival. The term "commodity housing" as used in this article specifically refers to "residential properties," intended to ensure homebuyers' basic living needs. In this case, the subject matter in dispute is a parking space, which, although primarily intended for use by owners within the residential community, has not yet reached a level that directly affects their right to subsistence. Therefore, it cannot be classified as a residential property and falls outside the scope of adjustment under Article 29 of the judicial interpretation. Consequently, this case should not be governed by Article 29 but instead should apply Article 28 to determine whether the owner holds civil rights sufficient to exclude the compulsory enforcement of the disputed parking space.

Viewpoint 1: The only parking space is used in conjunction with the residential property, creating a stable dependency between the parking space, the housing unit, and basic daily living needs. If the purchaser of the parking space meets the four conditions outlined in Article 28 of the "Provisions on Enforcement Objections and Review," they should enjoy civil rights sufficient to preclude compulsory enforcement.

Reference Case: Supreme People's Court (2022) Sup. Ct. Civ. App. No. 326

Ruling Perspective: Li Mou1 treated the parking space in question—located within the building complex but not yet registered with independent property rights—as a property interest belonging to a certain company, and thus applied to the court for its seizure and enforcement. Prior to the court's seizure, however, the company had already signed a "Parking Space Usage Rights Transfer Agreement" with Li Mou2, an owner of the residential community where the parking space is situated, agreeing to transfer the usage rights of the disputed parking space. After Li Mou2 paid the full contract price, she has consistently used this single parking space in conjunction with her residence, effectively establishing a stable dependency between her housing, basic living needs, and the parking space itself. Therefore, Li Mou2 meets the conditions outlined in Article 28 of the "Provisions on Enforcement Objections and Review," entitling her to civil rights sufficient to preclude the enforcement action.

Viewpoint 2: As long as the purchaser of the parking space meets the four conditions stipulated in Article 28 of the "Regulations on Enforcement Objections and Review," they should enjoy the right sufficient to exclude enforcement actions.

Reference Case 1: Supreme People's Court (2022) Sup. Ct. Civ. App. No. 362

Judicial Perspective: Article 28 of the "Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Execution Objections and Review Cases by People's Courts" stipulates: "In the execution of monetary claims, if a buyer raises an objection to real estate registered under the name of the judgment debtor and meets the following conditions, with their rights capable of being excluded from execution, the people's court shall grant support: (1) A lawful and valid written sales contract was signed before the property was sealed by the people's court; (2) The buyer had legally taken possession of the real estate prior to the court's seizure; (3) The full purchase price has been paid, or a portion of the price has been paid as agreed in the contract, with the remaining balance to be delivered for execution as required by the court; (4) The failure to complete the transfer registration was not due to the buyer's own reasons." According to this provision, Mr. Jiang’s claim to enjoy rights sufficient to exclude execution against the house and parking space involved in the case must satisfy all four of these conditions.

Reference Case 2: Shandong Provincial Higher People's Court (2021) Lu Min Zhong No. 2013

Judicial Opinion: Chen was an owner of the residential community where the parking space in question is located. Prior to the court's seizure, he had already signed a legal and valid "Parking Space Purchase Agreement" with a certain company and paid the full purchase price. The company has since delivered the disputed parking space to Chen, who continues to occupy and use it to this day. The inability to register property rights for the parking space was not due to any fault of Chen himself. According to Article 74, Paragraph 1 of the Property Law of the People's Republic of China, "Within a building development area, parking spaces and garages planned for vehicle parking shall first meet the needs of the owners." Parking spaces are specifically constructed to enhance residents' convenience and living comfort; thus, there exists an inherent functional relationship between the residential units and their associated parking spaces. Whether or not a home comes with a dedicated parking space significantly influences buyers' decisions, affects the property's value, and shapes their overall living experience—making the two inseparable. Considering these factors comprehensively, it is determined that Chen holds civil rights over the disputed parking space sufficient to preclude enforcement actions.

Article 29 of the "Provisions on Enforcement Objections and Review" is designed to protect consumers' fundamental right to survival; however, given the identity of the parking space consignment seller (such as a marketing planning company), this article clearly does not apply. Moreover, the parking space consignment seller does not fall under the "circumstances where transfer registration has not been completed due to reasons beyond the buyer's control," as outlined in Article 28 of the same provisions. Therefore, the seller does not hold civil rights sufficient to preclude compulsory enforcement against the disputed parking space.

Reference case: Chongqing Higher People's Court (2020) Yu Min Zhong No. 8

Judicial Opinion: Yu, as the exclusive distributor of parking spaces, knowingly entered into a distribution contract with a certain company despite being fully aware that these spaces could only be sold to residents of this residential community—and that each resident was entitled to purchase no more than two spaces. Therefore, it can be determined that the failure to complete the transfer registration of the disputed parking spaces was due to Yu’s own actions, indicating that he bore negligence in this matter.

Article 5 of the "Interpretation by the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Laws in Handling Disputes over Ownership of Divided Buildings" stipulates: "If the construction entity disposes of parking spaces and garages—whether through sale, gift, or lease—in accordance with the allocation ratio to owners, such actions shall be deemed compliant with Article 74, Paragraph 1 of the Property Law, which requires that 'the needs of the owners must be met first.' The allocation ratio referred to in the preceding paragraph is the ratio between the number of parking spaces and garages designated for vehicle parking within the planned building area and the number of residential units." The "Chongqing Municipal Regulations on Property Management," effective May 1, 2020, further clarify in Article 77: "…When the construction entity legally sells parking spaces (or garages), it must issue a public announcement and may not sell them to entities or individuals other than the property owners. Within six months from the date of the announcement, each residential household is entitled to purchase only one parking space (or garage) if the space is part of the residential complex’s配套 facilities. After the six-month period expires and if there are still surplus parking spaces (or garages), they may then be sold to other eligible owners. However, no single household may purchase more than two parking spaces (or garages) allocated for residential use;…" As the exclusive distributor of parking spaces, Mr. Yu should have known when he signed the "Parking Space Contractual Sales Agreement" and the "Supplementary Agreement" in 2011 that the disputed parking spaces could only be sold to homeowners, with each household subject to a specific purchase limit. Any buyer exceeding this limit would be ineligible to proceed with the property transfer process. Moreover, in this case, Mr. Yu failed to provide evidence demonstrating that he could still obtain property ownership certificates for the unsold parking spaces. Therefore, it is determined that Mr. Yu himself bears responsibility for the failure to complete the transfer registration of the parking spaces in question.

Based on the above cases, combined with several recent enforcement objection cases handled by the author—where objectors sought to exclude execution regarding purchased parking spaces—the author summarizes the conditions under which a parking space purchaser may request exclusion from enforcement as follows:

1. The purchaser of the parking space is a resident of the residential community and meets all four conditions stipulated in Article 28 of the "Regulations on Objections and Review in Enforcement Proceedings," namely: having signed a parking space purchase agreement with the debtor (the party subject to enforcement or the developer) before the court’s seizure; having legally occupied the parking space prior to the court’s seizure; having paid the full purchase price, or having paid a portion of the price as agreed in the contract while committing to deliver the remaining balance according to the court’s enforcement requirements; and failing to complete the transfer registration not due to the purchaser’s own fault. If these conditions are satisfied, the purchaser may request that enforcement proceedings be excluded.

2. Regarding whether a parking space falls under the category of "commodity housing" as defined in Article 29 of the Provisions on Enforcement Objections and Review, based on the cases reviewed by the author and recent instances handled by the Jinan Intermediate People's Court involving objections filed by parties seeking to exclude enforcement measures on parking spaces, most courts currently hold that "parking spaces legally exist as an integral part of commodity housing, serving primarily to meet the residential needs of property owners within the community. Thus, they represent a necessary extension and enhancement of the residential functions provided by commodity housing." Given that Article 29 of the Provisions on Enforcement Objections and Review is designed to safeguard consumers' fundamental right to survival, the purchaser of a parking space must acquire it solely to fulfill basic living requirements, using the space in conjunction with their residence. Only when a stable dependency has objectively emerged between the housing unit, essential living needs, and the parking space can this provision be applied.

3. Given that parking spaces in the residential community can only be sold to residents of the same community, when determining whether the consignment seller bears responsibility for "failure to complete the transfer registration not due to reasons attributable to the buyer," courts have considered the seller's unique status. In the cases cited above, courts have presumed that the consignment seller should have known that the disputed parking space could only be sold to residents—and that exceeding the community’s limit on the number of parking spaces available for purchase would result in the inability to proceed with property transfer procedures. Consequently, the court concluded that the consignment seller was at fault for failing to complete the transfer registration of the parking space in question. This determination makes sense, particularly when viewed from the perspective that the consignment seller acquired the parking space primarily for resale purposes. Recently, while handling several enforcement objection cases filed by consignment sellers (marketing and planning companies) who had purchased parking spaces, the Jinan Intermediate People’s Court applied similar reasoning. Considering the identity of the objectors and their stated intent to resell the purchased parking spaces, the court often relied on Article 28 of the "Provisions on Enforcement Objections and Review" to assess whether the conditions for excluding enforcement under that article were met.

Finally, the key difference between Article 29 and Article 28 of the "Provisions on Enforcement Objections and Review" lies in the fact that Article 29 explicitly stipulates that the subject of enforcement must be the sole residence of a third party—and specifically, a property developed and constructed by real estate developers. This provision safeguards commodity housing consumers, protecting their fundamental rights such as the right to housing and the right to survival. Under Article 29, commodity housing consumers who meet the payment conditions outlined in Article 2 of the "Supreme People's Court’s Reply on Issues Concerning the Protection of Rights of Commodity Housing Consumers" enjoy priority over mortgage rights and construction project payment claims. In contrast, Article 28 protects general purchasers—those who are not commodity housing consumers—and focuses on safeguarding their expectancy rights in real property interests. As a result, this article serves as a more universal provision that, in principle, cannot override statutory priorities such as mortgage rights or construction project payment claims.