TYGlobe

I. Origin of the Issue: Public housing sold under the "1994 Scheme" purchased jointly by a household, yet title could only be registered under one person

On 18 May 1994, the Shanghai Municipal People’s Government issued the Interim Measures for the Sale of Public Housing (Hu Fu Fa〔1994〕No.19), which stipulates: “All self-contained public housing units may be sold to tenant households and employees eligible for housing allocation.” “Eligible purchasers of public housing at cost price shall be lessees of public housing with permanent Shanghai household registration, adult co-residents thereof, and employees meeting housing allocation criteria.”

Pursuant to the above provisions, eligible Shanghai households generally followed this procedure when purchasing public housing sold after reform in that era:

The household jointly signed a Power of Attorney for Purchase of Public Housing, designating one household member as the “purchaser”;

The designated “purchaser” executed the Shanghai Public Housing Sales Contract with the local housing authority to complete purchase formalities;

Obtained the property title certificate. (Under the policy then, property ownership could only be registered to a single individual, usually the designated purchaser.)

This gave rise to a paradox: purchase eligibility was determined collectively by the public housing lessee, spouse, adult co-residents and other household members, yet only one person was recorded as the registered owner upon completion of purchase.

II. Response to the Issue: Relevant parties may claim co-ownership within the statute of limitations; property acquired during marriage qualifies as marital joint property

On 31 October 1996, the Higher People’s Court of Shanghai issued the Notice on Issuing Several Opinions on Handling Disputes Arising after the Sale of Public Housing (Hu Gao Fa〔1996〕No.250):

Article 9: Where housing is purchased under the “1994 Scheme” and the title certificate is registered to one individual, the purchaser, contributor of seniority points, contributor of rank points, original co-residents of the public housing and eligible fund contributors may claim property co-ownership within the statute of limitations, and such co-ownership may be confirmed.

Article 10: Where housing is acquired during the subsistence of a marriage and registered under the name of one spouse only, it shall constitute marital joint property unless a written agreement provides otherwise. The time of acquisition shall be the date of execution of the housing sales contract.

Accordingly, if the purchaser, contributor of seniority points, contributor of rank points, original co-residents or eligible fund contributors file a claim for co-ownership within the maximum 20-year statute of limitations, the judicial authority shall confirm such co-ownership. Claims filed after the 20-year period shall be deemed waived. For a spouse, public housing purchased during the marriage shall be recognized as marital joint property.

Judicial precedents applying the above opinions:Case No. (2020) Hu 02 Min Zhong No.10573Public housing purchased under the “1994 Scheme” was registered under one spouse’s name and later transferred to close relatives. Both spouses have since passed away intestate. The court held that the subject property constituted marital joint property, ruled the transfer by one spouse invalid, and declared the housing sales contract void.

Consistent rulings include: (2021) Hu 02 Min Zhong No.9831, (2021) Hu 01 Min Zhong No.2082, (2020) Hu 01 Min Zhong No.2897, (2016) Hu 0115 Min Chu No.79755

Judicial reasoning:“The subject property was acquired during the marriage of Pan and Liang. Liang therefore held statutory real rights in the property, which take effect without additional registration. For this reason, when Pan purchased the property under the 1994 Scheme in his sole name, Liang was not required to file an additional co-ownership claim to remedy defects of the 1994 Scheme. The property registered under Pan’s name was by operation of marriage law jointly owned by the couple. Liang’s statutory rights cannot be forfeited merely because she did not assert such rights during her lifetime.”

III. Shift in Judicial Attitude: Where a spouse never claimed co-ownership during lifetime, the public housing is deemed separate property and no co-ownership claim may be brought by close relatives

Case No. (2026) Hu 02 Min Zhong No.1169Public housing under the “1994 Scheme” was registered under one spouse’s name and subsequently sold to close relatives. The relatives sued to invalidate the transfer and seek re-registration under the original owner. The court ruled the property to be separate property, upheld the validity of the transfer, and dismissed the claim.

Consistent rulings include: (2025) Hu 02 Min Zhong No.10699, (2024) Hu 0106 Min Chu No.36078, (2024) Hu 0104 Min Chu No.8941

Judicial reasoning:“The 1994 Scheme emerged from housing reform policies of a specific era, under which title could only be registered to one person. Subsequent laws and policies stipulated that eligible co-residents, fund contributors and other qualified parties could seek confirmation of co-ownership within the statute of limitations. Nevertheless, any person entitled to claim co-ownership who fails to assert such right during their lifetime shall be deemed to consent to sole ownership by the registered title holder. The decedent’s close relatives may not assert corresponding rights on the basis of marital joint ownership. In this case, the subject property was acquired under the 1994 Scheme during the marriage of Sun and Wang and registered under Sun’s name. Wang never applied to be recorded as a co-owner during her lifetime and is therefore deemed to have consented to sole ownership by Sun. The property accordingly constitutes Sun’s separate property rather than marital joint property.”

IV. Author’s Analysis: Respect for the decedent’s lifetime arrangements and preservation of the existing title status

The author observes that rulings adopting this new position arise only under specific fact patterns: “both the registered owner and spouse have deceased; the spouse never asserted property rights during lifetime; and the registered owner disposed of the property while alive.”

It is clear from precedents that in 2020 and 2021, courts adhered to the marital joint property rule, set aside lifetime dispositions by the registered owner, restored title to its original state and redistributed ownership. From 2024 to 2026, however, courts have materially shifted approach for identical scenarios: they no longer invalidate lifetime dispositions by the registered owner and instead uphold existing title arrangements.

The author submits that more than thirty years have elapsed since the 1994 Scheme. Rights holders and their relatives had ample opportunity to file co-ownership claims. Where one spouse disposed of the property during lifetime and the other raised no objection until both passed away, courts decline to disrupt the long-standing status quo through judicial intervention, treating the existing state as reflective of the parties’ shared lifetime intent.

The author further notes that for the same type of “1994 Scheme” public housing registered under one spouse, courts will follow the deceased spouse’s testamentary or other written instructions on distribution of their share. See (2025) Hu 01 Min Zhong No.13360 and (2021) Hu 01 Min Zhong No.7123. This confirms that such rulings prioritize respect for the last wishes of the deceased.

In conclusion, the conflicting judgments concerning whether “1994 Scheme” public housing qualifies as marital joint property do not override statutory rules on marital joint ownership. Instead, they reflect judicial discretion to resolve property partition and title confirmation under specific circumstances. Legal practitioners shall, in future comparable matters, warn clients of litigation risks in partition actions and guide them toward alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.