Can a father still retrieve the house after giving it to his child? Beijing Changping Court: It is not allowed to dispose of the property of the ward without authorization. Can a father retrieve the house after giving it to his young daughter? After divorcing his wife, He Zhiqiang (pseudonym), a resident of Changping, Beijing, obtained custody of his daughter He Jiao (pseudonym). He Zhiqiang gifted a property to his 4-year-old daughter, and two years later, he transferred the property to his own name as a guardian through the gift. In February 2024, the North Seven People's Courts of Changping District People's Court made a first instance judgment on the dispute over the invalidity of the contract between He Jiao and He Zhiqiang, determining that the gift contract was invalid and the property should be returned to He Jiao. He Zhiqiang filed an appeal. The Beijing First Intermediate People's Court rejected the appeal in the second instance and upheld the original verdict. Not long ago, the case database of the People's Court included this case. Recently, a reporter from the Rule of Law Daily went to Changping Court for an in-depth interview on the details of the handling of the case. In March 2015, He Zhiqiang and Chen got married after transferring their property as guardians. One month later, daughter He Jiao was born. A year and a half later, He Zhiqiang and Chen agreed to divorce due to the breakdown of their relationship, and both parties agreed that He Jiao would be raised by He Zhiqiang. In December 2019, He Zhiqiang gifted a property under his name to 4-year-old He Jiao and completed the real estate registration procedures. In November 2021, He Zhiqiang, as the guardian of He Jiao, changed the property rights of the house to his own name through gift giving. Chen, the mother of He Jiao, believes that He Zhiqiang's behavior seriously violates his daughter's legitimate rights and interests. Subsequently, his mother acted as the legal representative and sued He Zhiqiang in the name of He Jiao, requesting that the gift contract be declared invalid. In the trial, He Zhiqiang claimed that the reason for registering the transfer of the house under his daughter's name was to avoid business risks and should not be considered a gift, and his actions were not a true expression of intention. The house belongs to one's personal property from beginning to end, and the act of transferring the house back to one's own name is a disposition of one's own property, not a misappropriation or disposition of one's daughter's property. He Zhiqiang said that Chen's lifestyle has always been problematic. After the divorce, Chen lived in the house in question under the guise of visiting his daughter and stated that he would not leave home after the divorce. During this period, Chen maintained ambiguous relationships with multiple men and had a brief marriage with one person. Chen, for personal gain, threatened to occupy the house involved in the case by competing for custody of the child. He also had multiple disputes with himself and made noise at relatives' homes, which had a negative impact on his and his child's lives. The act of transferring the property involved in the case to one's own name is for the protection of the child's property interests and should not be given a negative legal evaluation. During the trial of the case of damaging the property rights and interests of minors, the presiding judge Wang Liyuan and her colleagues went to the Changping District Real Estate Registration Center and retrieved materials from He Zhiqiang's two property transfer procedures, proving that he had signed on both occasions during the change registration process and that his ex-wife Chen was unaware of it. Wang Liyuan told reporters that there are two points of controversy in this case. Firstly, in December 2019, He Zhiqiang transferred the property to his daughter's name, and whether there was a genuine expression of gift intention between the two parties, and whether the gift contract was valid. Secondly, in November 2021, the property was transferred and registered under the name of He Zhiqiang. Is there a genuine expression of gift intention between He Jiao and He Zhiqiang, and is the gift contract valid. Regarding the first point of dispute, He Zhiqiang, as a person with full capacity for civil conduct, gifted the house involved in the case to his daughter by signing a gift contract and completed the registration of property transfer. Although the daughter is only 4 years old at this time, the law does not exclude the act of a minor purely obtaining benefits, and the gift does not violate mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations, nor does it violate public order and good customs. It should be legal and effective, and He Jiao should be the property owner of the house involved in the case. ”Wang Liyuan said that He Zhiqiang's argument that he transferred the property involved in the case to He Jiao's name to avoid risks, and that there was no genuine expression of gift intention between the two parties, was not accepted by the court as he could not provide evidence to prove it. As for the second point of dispute, the court believes that parents, as guardians of minors, should fulfill their guardianship duties in accordance with the principle that is most beneficial to the ward. Guardians shall not dispose of the property of the ward except for safeguarding the interests of the ward. Guardians shall fulfill their guardianship duties and, when making decisions related to the interests of the ward, respect the ward's true wishes based on their age and intellectual condition. When the gift contract was signed in 2021, He Jiao was only 6 years old and still a person without civil capacity. The content of the gift contract clearly exceeds the scope that can be understood as a person without civil capacity, and is not compatible with her intellectual and cognitive abilities. In other words, He Jiao does not have the corresponding civil capacity to make a voluntary gift of property. He Zhiqiang's behavior seriously damaged He Jiao's property rights and interests, which is not in line with the principle of being most beneficial to minors, violates the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations, and goes against public order and good customs. ”Wang Liyuan said that the court ultimately determined that the gift contract should be invalid, and the property obtained by He Zhiqiang due to this behavior should be returned. The judgment supported He Jiao's claim. He Zhiqiang appealed against the first instance judgment. The second instance court upheld the original verdict. The power of guardianship should be restricted. It is understood that Article 16 of the revised Law on the Protection of Minors in 2020 stipulates the guardianship responsibilities that parents or other guardians of minors should fulfill, and the seventh item is "properly managing and protecting the property of minors". The Law on the Protection of Minors also clearly stipulates that "in protecting minors, the principle that is most beneficial to minors should be adhered to". Wang Liyuan told reporters that when a guardian carries out civil legal acts on behalf of a minor, it involves two levels of relationship: the scope of the guardian's guardianship responsibilities and the protection of the minor's rights and interests. It is necessary to consider whether the guardian has the right to exercise such guardianship, as well as whether the guardian's actions constitute proper management and protection of the minor's property. If the actions taken by the guardian themselves violate mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations or violate public order and good customs, their actions will be deemed invalid. If the guardian's actions harm the property rights and interests of minors, they should also bear corresponding legal responsibilities. If the civil legal act performed by the guardian on behalf of the minor is a purely beneficial act, the act should be deemed valid, and the result of the minor obtaining benefits should be protected by law. From the perspective of the progress of the completion of the act, the transfer registration of the property gifted by the guardian to the underage child is completed, and the guardian generally cannot revoke the gift. According to relevant provisions of the Civil Code, after the transfer registration of the gifted property is completed, it has the effect of public disclosure to the outside world. Without legal reasons, the donor has no right to revoke the gift and take back the house. In this case, He Zhiqiang, as a person with full capacity for civil conduct, signed a gift contract on behalf of his daughter as a guardian, gifted the house to his daughter, and completed the registration of property transfer. Although the daughter is only 4 years old at this time, the law does not exclude the act of a minor purely obtaining benefits, and the gift does not violate mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations, nor does it violate public order and good customs. It should be legal and effective, and He Jiao should be the property owner of the house involved in the case. Through the trial of this case, Wang Liyuan believes that we should also be wary of minors becoming tools for parents to evade debts. In this case, He Zhiqiang once mentioned that the purpose of registering the transfer of his own property as a gift to his daughter's name was to avoid business risks. Although the evidence he submitted was insufficient to prove his claim, his defense was sufficient to raise concerns. When there is a situation where a guardian's debt is not fully repaid and they gift their own property to a minor child, it is necessary to consider the interests of both the minor child and the creditor comprehensively, and the validity of the gift contract cannot be simply determined on the grounds of protecting the minor child. In this case, when the gift contract was signed in 2021, He Jiao was only 6 years old and still a person without civil capacity. As his direct caregiver, He Zhiqiang should replace He Jiao in carrying out civil legal acts from the perspective of protecting her legitimate rights and interests. Now, He Zhiqiang has transferred the property involved in the case from He Jiao's name to his name through self signing, handling gift procedures, and other actions. The content of the gift contract clearly exceeds the scope that He Jiao, as a person without civil capacity, can understand, and is not compatible with his intellectual and cognitive abilities. In other words, He Jiao does not have the corresponding civil capacity to make a voluntary gift of property. The behavior of He Zhiqiang seriously damaged He Jiao's property rights and interests, which is inconsistent with the principle of "most beneficial to the ward", violates the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations, and goes against public order and good customs. Therefore, the gift contract should be invalid. (New Society)