The Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Marriage and Family Section of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (II) (hereinafter referred to as Interpretation II) has made several important revisions and improvements. Since its implementation on February 1, 2025, the scenario where one party fully funds a property before marriage, but the property title is registered in the names of both parties or the other party either before or after marriage, has attracted widespread attention. Article 5 [1] of Interpretation II provides the latest adjudicative direction regarding this issue. After studying the provisions, the author presents the following three reflections.

I. Article 5 of Interpretation II establishes the status of immovable property transfer registration as the core distinguishing standard, delineating treatment rules for two situations: not yet registered and registered. Paragraph 1 conducts a substantive examination regarding the scenario where there is only an agreement but no registration. Paragraph 2 takes the principle of good faith as its starting point, focusing on protecting the rights and interests of the giving party who is without fault. This approach avoids the predicament where the party who made substantial contributions to the family suffers a loss of rights, while also preventing behavior that seeks to obtain improper benefits through marriage, thereby achieving a unification of interest balance and value orientation.

II. Paragraph 2 of the said Article regards short duration of marriage as a factor for adjudication; however, a unified quantitative standard has not yet been established at the statutory level, leading to certain controversies in practice and academia. Among scholarly views, some advocate that a marriage under 3 years is a short marriage [2], while others believe 5 years or less constitutes a short marriage [3]. In judicial practice, the Jinan Intermediate People's Court clarified in its Answers to Several Issues Regarding the Application of Law in Civil and Commercial Trials that a short marriage is typically understood as being within two years [4]. At the press conference for Interpretation II, Judge Wang Dan also interpreted this by citing the example of a marriage duration being very short, such as one year [5]. Synthesizing academic views and the consensus in judicial practice, the author believes that a marriage duration of under 2 years can generally be recognized as a short duration of marriage. This standard accords with the adjudicative practice and scale of most courts and aligns with the reality that marriages of 2 years or less typically struggle to form a stable family community or involve the bearing of children.

III. Although the interpretation mentions compensation from the party obtaining the house to the other party, such compensation is not inevitably obtainable. Whether the court supports compensation depends on a comprehensive consideration of whether there exist reliance interests or substantial contributions worthy of protection.

(Figure 1 Omitted)

In the article Detailed Explanation of 29 Scenarios of Marital Joint Property Division previously published by the author and reposted by the Judicial Case Research Institute of the Supreme People's Court, one of the scenarios involved the determination of ownership regarding property provision acts between spouses upon divorce (see Figure 1). Previously in judicial practice, courts could usually rule that the party whose name was added (the spouse) would obtain 25% to 50% of the discounted value of the house. However, with the promulgation and implementation of Interpretation II, can the previous adjudicative scale continue to be applied, or will it become stricter? This article will focus on discussing the impact and changes Interpretation II has had on judicial practice since its implementation on February 1, 2025, analyzing theoretical aspects in combination with real cases, and attempting to propose relevant practical suggestions.

Using keywords such as pre-marital, housing, divorce, division, and discounted value payment, the author searched for judicial judgments and typical cases from the Supreme People's Court regarding divorce property division involving pre-marital full funding by one person and post-marital name change since February 1, 2025. Through empirical analysis, the core considerations were distilled: First, whether there is a relevant agreement regarding the pre-marital property name change after marriage, and what the nature of that agreement is; Second, whether the property or proprietary share has completed change of registration; Third, whether the corresponding agreement has undergone notarization procedures. Combining the above three perspectives with specific judicial cases, the author categorizes the ownership determination and division of this type of real estate in practice into 7 scenarios worthy of discussion. The following text will analyze these 7 scenarios (see Figure 2) in detail.

(Figure 2 Omitted)

1. No written agreement on the ownership of the subject property, but change or transfer of registration has been completed

Where one party fully funded the purchase of the house before marriage, and the house was registered in the names of both spouses or the other party after marriage, and there is no other agreement regarding the share of the subject property. The court will consider whether the receiving party has made contributions (including funding for the house itself and funding for furniture and related facilities). If the receiving party has made no contribution, the court usually rules that the house belongs to the giving party, and the discounted value payment received by the receiving party will be lower than their registered share. Specifically, this is determined by comprehensively combining factors such as the duration of the marriage, family contribution, situation of children, and fault.

However, in cases where both parties are without fault and have no children, the impact of the duration of the marriage on the compensation share is relatively limited. In the two cases below (see Figure 3), the receiving party's registered share of the property, the party filing for divorce, the fault situation, and the situation regarding children are all identical, with only the duration of marriage differing (10 years versus less than 2 years respectively). Yet, the final compensation share obtained by the female party was 20% of the discounted value of the house in both cases. The author believes that in such registered cases, the core basis for the judge to calculate the compensation share remains the immovable property registered share, which aligns with the principle of publicity and public trust of immovable property rights. Meanwhile, for the scenario of no agreement and no registration, because there is neither a clear meeting of minds regarding property ownership nor fixed ownership through property right registration, the division of such housing applies the general rules of statutory marital community property or personal property, and is not discussed additionally in this article.

Reference Case 1: Divorce Dispute between Cui and Chen, (2020) Hu 0109 Min Chu No. 23921 [Supreme People's Court Guiding Case]

Case Brief: The subject house was purchased with full payment by the male party before marriage. On the day of marriage registration, the house was changed to be registered in both names. The marriage lasted 10 years. The female party filed for divorce. Both parties were without fault and had no children.

Adjudication Reasoning: The court considered that the subject house was entirely converted from the Defendant's pre-marital personal property, and the female party made no contribution to the acquisition of the property rights or the assumption of loans. Combining the circumstances of the marriage duration, both parties' contributions to the family, and the capital transactions between the Plaintiff and Defendant, this court determines that the female party may receive 1.2 million RMB in discounted value payment for the house (i.e., 20% of the house's discounted value; both parties agreed the market value was 6 million RMB).

Reference Case 2: Tianjin Hebei District Court Case [6]

Case Brief: The two parties registered their marriage after dating for three months. After marriage, the male party registered the house he owned before marriage in both names. The marriage lasted less than two years. The female party filed for divorce. Both parties were without fault and had no children.

Adjudication Result: The house belongs to the Defendant. The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff a discounted value payment calculated at approximately 20% of the market price of the house.

Therefore, if the marriage duration is short, the giving party is without fault, and the receiving party files for divorce shortly after the transfer registration is completed, in order to correct such significant imbalance of interests, Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of Interpretation II specifically creates a regulation: The court may lawfully rule that the house belongs to the giving party to clarify the negative attitude towards behavior obtaining large amounts of property through brief marriages [7]; as to whether compensation needs to be paid to the other party, the court will make a comprehensive judgment combining multiple factors such as cohabitation, family contribution, and child rearing.

2. Written agreement exists regarding the share of the subject property

From the perspective of contract types, three types are common in practice: Divorce Agreement, Marital Property Agreement, and Gift Contract.

(I) Agreement on the house via Divorce Agreement

For property disputes involving divorce agreements, since the parties have already completed divorce registration procedures to dissolve the marital relationship, if a dispute arises, its nature and cause of action are typically disputes over property after divorce; disputes arising from agreements on the disposition of pre-marital personal housing within a divorce agreement also fall into this category.

If the agreement on the disposition of pre-marital personal property is included in the Divorce Agreement, its core purpose is to dissolve the marital relationship, belonging to a package solution covering status relationships, child rearing, property division, etc. The court highly respects the autonomy of the parties' will. As long as there are no statutory invalid circumstances (such as fraud or coercion), the validity of the agreement is recognized, requiring both parties to perform according to the agreement.

Reference Case 3: Chen v. Xia, Dispute over Property After Divorce, First Instance Civil Judgment (2025) Hu 0113 Min Chu No. 531

Adjudication Reasoning: The agreement regarding property distribution in the divorce agreement was made by both spouses upon comprehensive consideration of factors such as the marital relationship, child rearing, and the fault of each party. In the absence of statutory invalid circumstances, the true intention of the parties should be respected. In this case, even if the Hualing Road house was indeed the Defendant's pre-marital personal property, this does not negate the validity of the clause in the divorce agreement where the Defendant pays economic compensation to the Plaintiff. In summary, this court supports the Plaintiff's claim requesting the Defendant to pay economic compensation (first year) of 400,000 RMB.

(II) Agreement on the house via Marital Property Agreement

Where both parties agree in a marital property agreement that one party's pre-marital house belongs to the other, although substantively close to the legal characteristics of a gift contract, it actually belongs to an overall agreement between spouses regarding property and cannot be treated as a gift. According to Article 1065 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as Civil Code) [8], a marital property agreement becomes effective immediately upon signing by both parties. Regardless of whether it is notarized, it is generally not arbitrarily revocable and can only be revoked under statutory circumstances (fraud, coercion, significant misunderstanding, etc.). Therefore, notarization only affects the probative force of the agreement (the authenticity and legality of a notarized agreement are more easily adopted directly by the court, with lower difficulty of proof) and does not affect the division proportion. Thus, notarization is not discussed additionally. Consequently, in scenarios where the marital property agreement stipulates the share of the subject property, it is divided into two situations based on whether registration has occurred.

A marital property agreement is an agreement in written form made by spouses during the subsistence of the marriage regarding the ownership of property acquired during the marriage and pre-marital property. It involves not only property distribution but is also closely linked to the spousal status relationship. Therefore, Interpretation II applies preferentially for adjustment.

2.1 Property rights of the house have been changed or transferred via registration

In terms of practical handling logic, this is consistent with the scenario of "No written agreement on the ownership of the subject property, but change of registration has been completed." The existence of the marital property agreement serves to prove and fix the true expression of intent regarding property disposition between the parties, but it is not the core basis for the court's division of the property; division is still importantly guided by actual contribution and registered shares, ultimately determining house ownership and compensation amount by combining multiple related factors. The agreement itself does not alter this core adjudicative logic.

Reference Case 4: Yang Gang v. Song, Civil First Instance Judgment (2024) Wan 1125 Min Chu No. 6331

Case Brief: On November 8, 2022, the male party and female party signed a Agreement on Husband and Wife Immovable Property, stipulating that "the immovable property located at Room XX, Building XX, XX Street was purchased by the male party, and both parties now agree that the property rights belong to the female party." Immovable property registration procedures were handled on November 14, 2022, stating "Method of Transfer of Rights: Gift; Transferred Share: 100%." Less than a year later, the female party filed for divorce. The marriage lasted 10 years, producing a son and a daughter. Neither party was at fault.

Adjudication Reasoning: During the marriage, one spouse changing their personal pre-marital property to be owned by the other is a giving act generally based on establishing and maintaining the long-term stability of the marital relationship and expecting to share property interests jointly. The subject property was originally the male party Yang Gang's pre-marital personal property. The female party made no contribution to the acquisition of the property rights and filed for divorce within a relatively short time after receiving the property. However, considering that the marital relationship existed for over ten years, with a long period of cohabitation and the raising of a son and a daughter, and that after marriage Yang Gang bore the main family expenses while the female party bore the main trivial matters of family life and child care; combining factors such as the parties' cohabitation situation, contribution to the family, and market price of the house, this court holds that the subject property should belong to the giving party, Yang Gang. Additionally, Yang Gang is determined to compensate the female party 80,000 RMB. (i.e., approximately 40% of the discounted value of the house; this case did not disclose the discounted value, but the author searched multiple secondary housing websites and learned the market value of the same house type in that community is approximately 180,000-200,000 RMB).

2.2 Property rights of the house have not been changed or transferred via registration

If the spouses agree in a marital property agreement that one party's pre-marital house belongs to the other or is jointly owned, but property right registration has not been handled.

According to Article 1065 of the Civil Code, such a marital property agreement becomes legally effective from the date of establishment by signature, having legal binding force on both spouses, and both parties should abide by the agreed content. Interpretation II also recognizes the binding force of such agreements, which is the foundation for protecting party autonomy and reliance interests.

However, based on the principles of publicity and public trust of immovable property rights and convenience and efficiency, the giving party remains the owner of the house. Changes in ownership might trigger additional disputes and costs. Therefore, although the court recognizes the legal validity of the marital property agreement, it will typically rule that the house belongs to the original owner (the giving party). To balance the reliance interest of the receiving party generated based on the valid agreement, the court will also require the original owner of the house (the giving party) to provide compensation to the receiving party. The determination of the compensation amount will comprehensively consider factors such as the duration of the marriage, the contributions of both parties to the family, whether they raised children together, and fault in the divorce.

(III) Agreement on the house via Gift Contract

The independent legal personalities of spouses are not dissolved by marriage; they can engage in property legal acts after marriage [9]. Just as independent lending relationships can exist between spouses, theoretically, independent gift relationships can also exist between spouses. The Civil Code emphasizes party autonomy; if a complete and effective gift act is constituted between spouses, the provisions regarding gift contracts in the Contract Book should apply. Article 32 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Marriage and Family Section of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (I) (hereinafter referred to as Interpretation I) [10] also reflects the law's stance on the existence of relatively independent gift relationships between spouses.

Some articles argue that Paragraph 1 of Article 5 of Interpretation II denies the right of arbitrary revocation before the transfer or change of registration of real estate, creating a conflict with the provision in Interpretation I Article 32 which "affirms the right of arbitrary revocation before transfer of ownership," potentially leading to different adjudicative results for the ownership of the same house under different judicial interpretation application scenarios [See: Interpretation II of Marriage and Family Section: Handling Rules for Spousal Property Giving Issues]. Through searching a large number of judgment documents, the author found that after the implementation of Interpretation II, courts mostly directly apply Article 5 of Interpretation II to adjudicate cases involving spousal property giving. This phenomenon may reflect that the application space for Article 32 of Interpretation I in current judicial practice has been significantly restricted. The root of the above adjudicative trend may lie in the vague areas existing at the practical level regarding the definition of the nature of spousal property disposition acts. Before the implementation of Interpretation II, various acts involving spousal housing giving could apply the provisions of Article 32 of Interpretation I; but after Interpretation II was implemented, the scope of application for Interpretation I was further restricted, applying only to scenarios where spouses make a clear expression of intent to gift and agree in the form of a gift contract. Even so, this clear expression of intent to gift should not be ignored in adjudication.

At the same time, a type of controversial scenario exists in practice: Apart from divorce litigation, where one spouse has legally exercised the right of arbitrary revocation pursuant to Interpretation I regarding a house where an agreement exists but ownership has not transferred, and subsequently a dispute arises over the subject property, it is still ambiguously fitted into the application framework of Article 5 of Interpretation II. According to the clear provisions of the judicial interpretation, the scope of application of Interpretation II is limited to divorce litigation. For scenarios where a spouse has legally exercised the right of arbitrary revocation pursuant to Interpretation I outside of divorce litigation, Interpretation II does not regulate, and the lawful and effective right of revocation granted to that party by Interpretation I should be respected.

In scenarios where a gift contract stipulates the share of the subject property, it is divided into four situations based on whether it is registered and whether it is notarized. Among them, in the registered scenario, since the transfer of immovable property ownership takes effect upon registration [11], once registration is completed, the house ownership transfers according to law. Whether the gift contract is notarized does not affect the validity of this change in property rights. Therefore, no distinction is made regarding notarization, and they are discussed together.

3.1 Property rights of the house have been changed or transferred via registration

If the subject property has completed immovable property transfer registration, it means the gift act has been fully performed, and the publicity and public trust validity of the property right registration should be fully respected.

After the change or transfer registration of the house is completed, the donee becomes the owner (or co-owner) of the house, and the corresponding change in property rights has the legal effect of absolute opposition to third parties. Change of registration is the core mark of the performance of a gift contract. Once registration is completed, the donor has comprehensively performed the property delivery obligation, the donee has legally and actually obtained the property right of the house, and the rights and obligations relationship generated based on the subject gift contract terminates. Unless statutory or agreed circumstances exist, such as the donee failing to perform obligations attached to the gift contract, the donor has no right to claim the return of the house.

Reference Case 6: Gift Contract Dispute between Weng X Long and Mo X Li, (2012) Liu Cheng Min Yi Chu Zi No. 696

Adjudication Reasoning: According to legal provisions, a gift contract is a contract where the donor gives their own property to the donee without compensation, and the donee expresses acceptance of the gift; the donor may revoke the gift before the rights of the gifted property are transferred; the donor may revoke the gift if the donee has any of the following circumstances: (1) severely infringing upon the lawful rights and interests of the donor or the donor's close relatives; (2) having an obligation to support the donor but failing to fulfill it; (3) failing to fulfill the obligations agreed in the gift contract. In this case, during the marriage, the Plaintiff voluntarily gave the house he owned to the Defendant without compensation and without attaching any conditions. The Defendant accepted, and both parties went to the housing management office to handle property right change procedures. The transfer of property rights has already occurred. Thus, it can be seen that this contract is the true expression of intent of both parties, does not violate laws or regulations, and does not infringe upon the lawful rights and interests of the state, collective, or third parties. The gift is legal and valid and should be protected by law. Regarding whether the gift is revocable, since the Plaintiff cannot produce evidence proving the Defendant committed acts severely infringing upon the Plaintiff or his close relatives, and the Gift Contract clearly stated the gift had no additional conditions, it does not meet the statutory conditions for revoking a gift. Therefore, the Plaintiff's claim lacks sufficient evidence and reason, is not supported by this court, and is dismissed according to law.

Reference Case 7: Gift Contract Dispute between Zhang and Liang, Civil First Instance Judgment (2021) Liao 0114 Min Chu No. 14708

Adjudication Reasoning: In this case, the Plaintiff voluntarily gifted his share of the subject property, which was jointly owned by the couple, to the Defendant. Both parties have completed the property transfer registration procedures. The gift act has been completed and cannot apply the provision of the right of arbitrary revocation under Article 658 of the Civil Code. Regarding the statutory right of revocation, the Plaintiff failed to provide evidence proving the Defendant engaged in statutory circumstances where the gift should be revoked. As for the Defendant filing for divorce against the Plaintiff in April 2021, which the Plaintiff believes damaged his lawful rights and interests, this court believes that both spouses enjoy the right to freedom of marriage. The Plaintiff gifting his share of the property rights to the Defendant reflects the autonomy of the spouses' will. The Plaintiff, as the right holder, voluntarily waiving his property share complies with the provision that parties have the right to dispose of their civil rights within the scope of the law. It cannot be determined that the Defendant severely damaged the Plaintiff's lawful rights and interests based on the filing of a divorce suit. Therefore, the Plaintiff's claim to revoke the gift and require the Defendant to return the subject property lacks corresponding factual and legal basis and is not supported by this court.

3.2 Property rights of the house have not been changed or transferred via registration

For gift contracts, the donor enjoys the right of arbitrary revocation before the transfer of the gifted property rights. However, according to Article 658 of the Civil Code, notarized gift contracts, and gift contracts which are legally irrevocable and have a public welfare or moral obligation nature such as disaster relief, poverty alleviation, and disability assistance, do not apply the provisions of the right of arbitrary revocation. Therefore, judging whether a gift contract has been notarized is of key significance in defining whether the donor enjoys the right of arbitrary revocation.

3.2.1 Property rights of the house have not been changed or transferred via registration, nor notarized

If after signing the gift contract, the spouses neither handled the house change registration nor notarized the gift contract, the donor legally enjoys the right of arbitrary revocation before the transfer of the gifted property rights. The exercise of this right of revocation does not require a court judgment; the donor can unilaterally and directly claim to revoke the gift, and after revocation, the gift contract no longer has binding force on either party.

In divorce litigation, if the donor exercises the right of arbitrary revocation, the court will usually determine that the house ownership remains with the donor, and the donee has no right to claim a share of the house or request change of registration based on the revoked gift contract.

3.2.2 Property rights of the house have not been changed or transferred via registration, but have been notarized

If the spouses have notarized the gift contract, according to Article 658 of the Civil Code, the donor's right of arbitrary revocation is restricted. Even if change of registration cannot be handled temporarily due to objective reasons such as loans existing on the property or policy restrictions, the validity of the notarization can ensure the stability of the gift contract, preventing the donor from maliciously delaying or unilaterally revoking. If the donor claims to exercise the right of poverty defense [12] on the grounds of their own economic difficulty, the court may temporarily suspend the performance of the registration obligation based on their actual economic status, but this is not a revocation of the gift contract—once the donor's economic status recovers, the donee still has the right to request them to continue performing the transfer obligation.

Even if the gift contract is notarized, the donee may still fail to obtain house ownership: Notarization only proves the authenticity and legality of the gift contract and does not produce the effect of property right change; house ownership transfer still requires immovable property change registration as a statutory requirement. If the donor sells the house to a bona fide third party at a reasonable price and completes registration before the property right change registration [13], the donee has no right to request continued performance of the transfer obligation but may claim liability for breach of contract against the donor based on the notarized gift contract, requesting compensation for actual losses such as the house price appreciation and notarization fees.

In addition to general gifts between spouses, there also exist in practice special forms of gifts based on marriage, such as gifts attached with the purpose of marriage, or gifts attached with the purpose of maintaining the continuation of marriage (which can also be understood as housing gifts conditional on not divorcing). This type of gift is not solely for the purpose of realizing the other party's wealth appreciation, but is built upon the parties' reasonable expectations for the conclusion, stability, and common life of the marriage [14]. The distinction between this type of special gift and general gifts between spouses is based on the parties' true expression of intent. When the expression of intent is unclear, the giving share of the house (registration method) can serve as a reference for presuming the parties' true intent: If one party changes the registration of a house owned personally before marriage to be jointly owned by both spouses, it is usually recognized as a special gift with the core purpose of maintaining the marital relationship and realizing common life; if one party transfers the registration of a house owned personally before marriage to be solely owned by the other party, it can usually be recognized as a general gift between spouses [15]. For disputes over special gifts based on marriage, adjudication needs to comprehensively consider multiple factors such as the principle of public order and good morals, party autonomy, the gifted share, the value of the house, and both parties' contributions to the marriage. On one hand, the parties' true expression of intent should be fully respected; if both parties have an independent and clear meeting of minds regarding the gift, it should be recognized and protected. On the other hand, it is necessary to examine whether the purpose of the gift points solely to the conclusion or maintenance of marriage, while simultaneously considering whether the receiving party has made property contributions such as actual funding, joint loan repayment, or house renovation, ultimately achieving an organic unification of legal provisions, public order and good morals, and the parties' true wishes.

III. Summary

Through reviewing the 7 typical scenarios, it is evident that the legal application of spousal property giving acts requires grasping two key considerations simultaneously: First, the definition of the nature of the act (distinguishing between property agreements in divorce agreements, marital property agreements, and gift contracts); Second, the publicity status of rights (whether notarized, whether change or transfer registration is completed). The two jointly determine the application of legal basis, thereby influencing the direction of the adjudication result.

The three types of act natures should correspond to differentiated adjudicative logic and application boundaries. For marital property agreements that focus on status connection and family integrity, Article 5 of Interpretation II applies preferentially for regulation; whereas for legal acts where both parties have clear and independent expressions of intent to gift, their autonomy of will should be respected, applying the relevant provisions on gifts in the Contract Book of the Civil Code and supporting judicial interpretations. If the disposition agreement for the subject property is included in a divorce agreement, due to the characteristic of the divorce agreement being a "package solution," the male and female parties should perform according to the agreement unless statutory invalid or revocable circumstances exist. From the perspective of rights publicity, the roles of notarization and registration are crucial: Immovable property right registration has statutory publicity and public trust; the information on the owner and shared shares stated in the registration is the basis for the court to adjudicate house ownership. Although Interpretation II stipulates that the giving party may still recover the property in registered scenarios, this is limited to specific circumstances where the marriage duration is short and the giving party has no major fault. In the context of gifts between spouses, notarization of a gift contract can oppose the donor's right of arbitrary revocation, but notarization is essentially a proving act and does not produce the effect of property right change; the donee may still face the risk of failed expectations of rights, so handling registration as soon as possible is the only way to safeguard the realization of rights.

In practical cases, a cross-combination of 2 or more scenarios often appears. This requires parties to uphold a more prudent attitude when disposing of rights, and also poses higher challenges to the ability of legal practitioners to define nature and the level of adjudicative discretion of judges. Currently, we are still in the transitional stage of the implementation of Interpretation II. The marital relationship itself has characteristics of long-term duration and continuity. In practice, a large number of parties had already disposed of pre-marital housing through forms such as marital property agreements before the issuance of this interpretation, and such situations are universal. The author hopes that when courts hear such cases, they should comprehensively consider whether the parties have independent intent to gift and the degree of clarity of such intent, aligning the specific circumstances of individual cases with the legislative spirit of Interpretation II, avoiding mechanical application of legal articles, and ultimately achieving the unification of formal justice and substantive fairness.

Notes:

[1] Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Marriage and Family Section of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (II): Article 5: Before marriage or during the subsistence of the marital relationship, where the parties agree to transfer the registration of a house owned by one party to the name of the other party or both parties, and at the time of divorce litigation the transfer registration of the house ownership has not yet been made, if there is a dispute over the ownership or division of the house and negotiation fails, the People's Court may, based on the parties' litigation claims, combining the purpose of giving, and comprehensively considering factors such as the duration of the marital relationship, the situation of common life and bearing of common children, fault in divorce, the size of contribution to the family, and the market price of the house at the time of divorce, rule that the house belongs to one of the parties, and determine whether the party obtaining the house shall provide compensation to the other party and the specific amount of compensation.

Before marriage or during the subsistence of the marital relationship, where one party transfers the registration of a house owned by them to the name of the other party or both parties, and in divorce litigation there is a dispute over the ownership or division of the house and negotiation fails, if the duration of the marital relationship is short and the giving party has no major fault, the People's Court may, based on the parties' litigation claims, rule that the house belongs to the giving party, and combining the purpose of giving, comprehensively consider factors such as the situation of common life and bearing of common children, fault in divorce, the size of contribution to the family, and the market price of the house at the time of divorce, to determine whether the party obtaining the house shall provide compensation to the other party and the specific amount of compensation.

Where the giving party has evidence proving that the other party committed fraud, coercion, severe infringement upon the lawful rights and interests of the giving party or their close relatives, or failure to fulfill support obligations to the giving party, and requests to revoke the civil legal acts stipulated in the preceding two paragraphs, the People's Court shall support it according to law.

[2] Source: [https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice-points/what-makes-a-short-marriage/5118547.article](https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice-points/what-makes-a-short-marriage/5118547.article), accessed December 3, 2025

[3] Source: [https://www.lawbriefpublishing.com/2022/06/free-chapter-from-a-practical-guide-to-short-marriages-for-family-lawyers-by-sadie-glover/](https://www.lawbriefpublishing.com/2022/06/free-chapter-from-a-practical-guide-to-short-marriages-for-family-lawyers-by-sadie-glover/), accessed December 3, 2025

[4] See Answers to Several Issues Regarding the Application of Law in Current Civil and Commercial Trials (V) by Jinan Intermediate People's Court

[5] See Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Marriage and Family Section of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (II) Q&A with Reporters, Source: Supreme People's Court News Bureau

[6] See: "Can Pre-marital Property Added with Name After Marriage be Split Evenly Upon Divorce?", Source: Shandong High Court

[7] See Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Marriage and Family Section of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (II) Q&A with Reporters, Source: Supreme People's Court News Bureau

[8] Civil Code of the People's Republic of China: Article 1065: Men and women may agree that the property acquired during the subsistence of the marital relationship and pre-marital property shall be owned separately, jointly, or partially separately and partially jointly. The agreement shall be in written form. If there is no agreement or the agreement is unclear, the provisions of Articles 1062 and 1063 of this Law shall apply.

The agreement between spouses regarding the property acquired during the subsistence of the marital relationship and pre-marital property shall have legal binding force on both parties.

Where spouses agree that the property acquired during the subsistence of the marital relationship shall be owned separately, if one spouse bears debts to the outside, and the counterparty knows of such agreement, the debts shall be paid off with the personal property of that spouse.

[9] See Liu Zhengfeng, "Differentiation of Types and Liquidation Rules of Intra-Marital Gifts," published in Application of Law, Issue 11, 2024

[10] Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Marriage and Family Section of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (I) Article 32: Before marriage or during the subsistence of the marital relationship, where the parties agree to gift a property owned by one party to the other party or for shared ownership, and the donor revokes the gift before the change registration of the gifted property, and the other party requests a judgment for continued performance, the People's Court may handle it in accordance with the provisions of Article 658 of the Civil Code.

[11] Civil Code of the People's Republic of China Article 209: The establishment, change, transfer, and extinction of immovable property rights shall become effective upon registration according to law; they shall not take effect without registration, unless otherwise provided by law.

Natural resources lawfully owned by the state may go without registration of ownership.

[12] Civil Code of the People's Republic of China Article 666: Where the economic status of the donor deteriorates significantly, seriously affecting their production, operation, or family life, they may cease to perform the gift obligation.

[13] See (2022) Xin 01 Min Zhong No. 3182

[14] See Understanding and Application of the Judicial Interpretation of the Marriage and Family Section of the Civil Code by the Supreme People's Court, p. 303.

[15] See Understanding and Application of the Judicial Interpretation of the Marriage and Family Section of the Civil Code by the Supreme People's Court, p. 303.