Prosecutor-protested Case Concerning Dispute of a Legacy-support Agreement:Mao Shunqing and Long Fuchen v.Mei Zhengxian@#
On Feb.17, 1987, Witnessed by Zhang Tingliang, Chen Weihua etc., Kuang Tingda, Xiao Guanglun and Kuang Zhongliang wrote a will for Mao Shunqing and Long Fuchen, two monks. The will mainly read as follows:" Mao Shunqing and Long Fuchen, the master and the apprentice, are too old and have no any support or wait at present, let alone the burials. Our remaining years can only depend on my niece, Mei Zhengxian. Therefore, in witness of my relatives and friends, Mei Zhengxian will inherit my three rooms that are located at No.299, Jiefang Road provided that she shall look after both of us and give us a dignified burial. Mei Zhengxian is entitled to the ownership of the house without any intervention from the date hereof. Word of mouth being no guarantee, a written statement is hereby given." The two parties notarized the will at Notary Office of Hezhang County in Guizhou Province on March 6, 1987. What the notarized document named:"Instrument of Donation" focused on were as follows:" the donor is Mao Shunqing and Long Fuchen, the legatee is Mei Zhengxian. Whereas Mao Shunqing and Long Fuchen are aging and ailing and have no other relatives, they, the donor, voluntarily and conditionally donated three rooms (located at No. 299 Jiefang East Road, Chengguan Town [i.e. Shuanghe Town], Hezhang County, built by himself, flat house with earth, tier and wood structure, about 60 square meters, worth 11,000 RMB), noodle machines and other furniture to Mao's niece, Mei Zhengxian, in order to relief the burden of the state. Mei Zhengxian has the ownership of the house from the date when the instrument of donation comes into effect. At the same time, Mei shall be responsible for support and burial of Mao Shunqin and Long Fuchen." The notary talked with Mei Zhengxian before the Notary Office of Hezhang County issued the notarial deed on April 16, 1987 and recorded her representation that:" I will be responsible for the two old men' food and clothing and burial. If I fail to perform the obligations under the instrument of donation, the donor has the right to recover his properties." After the agreement was concluded, Mao and Long delivered the said house and the noodle machines etc. to Mei Zhengxian while Mei provided them with food, vegetables etc. At the same time, Mei spent about RMB 15, 000 in demolishing the said house and rebuilding a 120-square-meter house with bricks and cement (two stories) with Mao and Long's approval. Neighborhood Committee of Chengguan Town lent a house to Mao and Long for residence when demolishing the said house. However, after the new house was built, Mei ran a hotel upstairs and a restaurant downstairs instead of bringing Mao and Long at home. With other's introduction in 1990, Lei Xianji (female, nun) came to Hezhang County and lived with Mao and Long but she earned her own living. Mei was dissatisfied with them; in addition, Mao suspected that it was Mei's accusation that his Confucian Classics was confiscated by the local public securities so that their relation worsened. As a result, Mei didn't support and assist Mao and Long any more. Henceforth, Mao and Long made a living by planting others' land, collecting garbage and others' financial assistance. Mao and Long repeatedly reported Mei's non-performance to the neighborhood committee and the notary office. The notary office conducted mediation, so did the neighborhood committee in 1990 and 1991. Mei acknowledged that she was sorry not to perform her obligation well when the neighborhood committee conducted the mediation on May25, 1991. However, the several mediations failed for her lacking whole heartedness.Supported by the neighborhood committee and others, Mei and Long brought an action in the People's Court of Hezhang County on June 5, 1991 and claimed to terminate the relation of legacy and recover the house and other properties on the ground that "Mei Zhengxian violated her obligations under the conditional donation. "@#
．．．．．．

毛顺清、龙福臣诉梅正仙遗赠扶养协议纠纷抗诉案@#
1987年2月17日，出家人毛顺清、龙福臣由张廷亮、陈卫华等人在场，况廷达、肖光伦、况忠良代笔，立下遗嘱。遗嘱主要内容为：“毛顺清、龙福臣师徒二人因年高缺乏劳力，……目前生活无人奉养，一旦死了又有谁来安埋？日夜忧思无方可想，只有我的亲外甥梅正仙可以寄托我们的晚年，为此，经亲邻朋友证明，当人移交给梅正仙继承我原建的住房三间，在解放路299号，但我师徒二人的生前生活要梅正仙负责到底，我们死后要梅正仙风光安埋，我自立字据之日起这一屋三间的主权属梅正仙所有，任何人不得侵犯干涉，空口无凭立遗嘱一纸为据。”同年3月6日，毛顺清、龙福臣与梅正仙到贵州省赫章县公证处公证。公证文书名为“赠与书”，主要内容为：“赠与人毛顺清、龙福臣、受赠人梅正仙，赠与人毛顺清、龙福臣在赫章县城关镇解放东路299号有自己修建的土木瓦结构平房三间，面积约60平方米，价值11000元，现因年老多病，又无其他亲人，为减轻国家和人民负担，自愿将上述房屋和压面机及其他家具有条件的赠与侄女梅正仙，从赠与书生效之日起，产权即归梅正仙所有，同时梅正仙必须负责毛顺清、龙福臣的生养死葬。”同年4月16日，赫章县公证处在出具公证书时，公证员找梅正仙谈话并作记录，梅正仙表示：老人在时负责吃、穿，死时负责安葬。如不尽“赠与书”所说的义务，老人有权收回财产。协议签订后，毛、龙二人将房屋、压面机等交付梅正仙，梅正仙也给毛、龙二人提供了粮食、蔬菜等。同年，梅正仙在征得毛、龙二人同意后，对解放东路299号房屋进行重建，将该房屋拆除并修建成面积为120平方米砖混结构一楼一底的房屋，花费约15000元。拆房之初，毛、龙二人向城关镇居委会借房居住。但房屋建好后，梅正仙并未将毛、龙二人接回，而是将该房用作经营，楼上开旅馆，楼下开餐馆。1990年，雷先吉(女，系出家人)经人介绍来到赫章县与毛、龙二人共居住，自食其力。梅正仙对此不满，双方产生矛盾，加之毛顺清的经书被当地公安机关没收，毛怀疑是梅正仙告发，双方关系进一步恶化。梅正仙即放弃了对毛、龙二人的扶养，毛、龙二人靠借种他人土地、捡拾破烂和群众的接济维持生活。毛、龙二人多次向居委会、公证处反映梅正仙不尽生养义务。赫章县公证处曾经组织调解，城关镇居委会亦于1990、1991年两次组织调解。1991年5月25日城关镇居委会调解时，梅正仙承认几年来没有尽到义务，自己对不起老人。但因梅正仙无扶养毛、龙二人的诚意，多次调解均无结果。在城关镇居委会和群众的支持下，毛顺清、龙福臣二人以“房屋赠与梅正仙，是有条件的赠与，现梅正仙对我们不尽义务”为由，于1991年6月5日向赫章县人民法院起诉，请求解除遗赠关系并归还房屋和其他财产。@#
@#
赫章县人民法院审理认为，毛、龙二人与梅正仙之间的遗赠扶养协议属实，但梅正仙未尽到生养义务，双方矛盾逐渐加深，关系日趋恶化，致使原告拒绝梅正仙对其扶养，遗赠扶养协议难以继续维持。原告毛、龙二人所赠房屋及财产，梅正仙理应返还。梅正仙翻修后的房屋与原房屋之间的差价，毛、龙二人应适当补偿。1991年11月5日，赫章县人民法院以(1991)赫法民字第437号民事判决书判决：1.毛顺清、龙福臣与梅正仙所订立的赠与合同，至本判决生效起废止；2.梅正仙将毛顺清、龙福臣房屋翻建的房屋归毛顺清、龙福臣所有。由梅正仙退还毛顺清、龙福臣压面机2台、电动机1台、大小方桌各1张、木床2张、被子1床、板凳4条、水泥缸1个、碗柜1个、电表一个；3.由毛顺清、龙福臣付给梅正仙人民币15000元；4.上述互相给付的房屋、财产和现金，均在判决生效后2个月内一次付清。梅正仙不服一审判决，向毕节地区中级人民法院提出上诉。@#
毕节地区中级人民法院审理认为：梅正仙与毛顺清、龙福臣签订“遗赠扶养”协议后，梅正仙尽了一定的义务。雷先吉来赫章与毛顺清共同生活，梅正仙不满，加之毛顺清经书被公安机关收缴而怀疑梅正仙告发，故双方发生纠纷。梅正仙修建房屋是征得毛顺清、龙福臣同意后才拆除原房修建的，原房屋已不存在，梅正仙原住房已出卖，现无房居住，因此对毛顺清要求返还原房屋的诉讼请求不予支持。双方不能继续履行“遗赠扶养”协议，应由梅正仙对毛顺清、龙福臣的原房折价赔偿。1992年5月13日毕节地区中级人民法院作出(1991)民上字第592号民事判决书，判决：1.维持赫章县人民法院(1991)赫法民字第437号民事判决书第一条；2.改判赫章县人民法院(1991)赫法民字第437号民事判决书第二、三条为：新建房屋归梅正仙所有，由梅正仙付给毛顺清、龙福臣人民币15000元。梅正仙返还毛顺清、龙福臣压面机等财产。@#
@#
二审判决后，1992年6月21日毛、龙二人向检察机关提出了申诉。同年7月，龙福臣因病死亡，当地群众集资将其安葬。贵州省人民检察院经审查认为，根据《中华人民共和国继承法》规定，遗赠扶养协议是一种附条件的法律行为。扶养人只有在全面、切实履行协议规定的“生养死葬”义务后，方可享受接受遗赠物的权利，梅正仙拒绝履行对毛、龙二人的扶养义务，二审法院却判决房屋归其所有，适用法律错误。且经检察机关调查，梅另有房屋居住。1993年8月，贵州省人民检察院以黔民抗字(1993)第3号抗诉书就本案向贵州省高级人民法院提出抗诉。1993年9月3日，贵州省高级人民法院以(1993)黔民再字第7号民事裁定书，指令毕节地区中级人民法院另行组成合议庭对本案进行再审。毕节地区中级人民法院再审认为：梅正仙与毛顺清、龙福臣所签订的遗赠扶养协议，是附条件民事法律行为，其所附条件符合，协议自然生效，否则反之。梅未能很好地履行生养义务，其所改建之房应归还毛顺清、龙福臣，毛、龙对梅作适当补偿。基于上述认识，毕节地区中级人民法院以(1994)民再终字第20号民事判决书判决：1.撤销本院二审(1991)民上字第592号民事判决，维持一审赫章县人民法院(1991)赫法民字第437号民事判决；2.房屋归属及一应物品按一审判决执行。梅正仙不服毕节地区中级人民法院的再审判决，向贵州省高级人民法院提出申诉。@#
．．．．．．