Case: Cui Moumou v. [Company Name] Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. – Dispute over Neighboring Relations

[Title] Cui Moumou v. [Company Name] Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. – Case of Dispute over Neighboring Relations

[Keywords] Civil Law / Neighboring Relations / Obstruction of Light / Right to Light / Compensation

【Key Points of the Ruling】

According to Article 64 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 90 of the Supreme People's Court’s Interpretations on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, a party has the responsibility to provide evidence for its claims. If a party fails to provide evidence or the evidence provided is insufficient to prove its factual assertions, the party bearing the burden of proof shall bear the adverse consequences. In this case, the plaintiff contends that the project constructed by the defendant blocks sunlight, thereby infringing upon the plaintiff’s right to adequate daylight. However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff does not sufficiently establish the fact that sunlight is being blocked. Therefore, given the insufficiency of evidence, the court does not uphold the plaintiff’s claim.

[Basic Facts of the Case]

In the case of Plaintiff Cui Moumou versus Defendant Moumou Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Moumou Company) concerning a dispute over neighboring relations, after the People’s Court of Moumou District filed and accepted the case, it conducted a public trial in accordance with the law using the simplified procedure.

The plaintiff, Cui Moumou, brings the following claims: 1. Since the property development project developed by the defendant—Project Moumou—has caused shadowing of the plaintiff’s residence, the plaintiff requests that the defendant compensate according to Shenyang City’s standards for compensation for shadowing, at an amount of × square meters × 600 = × yuan; 2. The defendant shall bear the litigation costs. Facts and Grounds: The residential community of Project Moumou, developed and completed by the defendant, has severely blocked sunlight onto the plaintiff’s residence in Community Moumou. In Year ×, the defendant compensated some homeowners based on its own shadowing report. However, since most homeowners in the community questioned the shadowing report and filed complaints with the subdistrict office, the Subdistrict Office of Moumou commissioned Company A to conduct on-site light measurements in Community Moumou on January ×, the day of Great Cold, and issued and publicly released the “Sunlight Analysis Report.” According to the conclusions of this light measurement report, the homeowners subject to measurement fall into four categories: those marked in red have window-to-window sunlight exposure lasting less than two hours and possess specific data; these homeowners have already been registered and are awaiting compensation. Those marked in black meet the two-hour requirement but do not qualify for compensation. Those marked in dark blue were outside the scope of this light measurement (primarily commercial premises). Those marked in light blue have window-to-window sunlight exposure lasting less than two hours, but their specific data have been lost (due to internal reasons within Company A, resulting in the loss of detailed photographic data). Currently, the defendant has provided no explanation or indication of compensation for these homeowners marked in light blue. Since most homeowners similarly marked in light blue had already received compensation in Year ×, a number of us homeowners who have yet to receive compensation have therefore filed this lawsuit against the defendant, demanding compensation.

The defendant, [Company Name], argues as follows: 1. Based on the evidence submitted by the plaintiff and considering the defendant’s own evidence, there is no shading of light affecting the plaintiff’s property. The appraisal method used by Company A in its report, upon which the plaintiff relies, does not meet the statutory requirements, and furthermore, the plaintiff’s property itself is not shown to be subject to any shading in that appraisal report. 2. According to the requirements set forth in Article 27 of Document No. 64 issued by the Shenyang Municipal Government in 2006, commissioned by the defendant to Company B, the solar radiation impact analysis report must be prepared using genuine software certified by the national construction administrative authority and by a unit possessing the requisite legal qualifications. As evidenced by the solar radiation analysis report provided by the defendant, the plaintiff’s property is indeed free from any shading. Therefore, the defendant contends that the plaintiff’s property is not subject to any shading, and requests the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims.

【Judgment】 The plaintiff Cui Moumou’s claim is dismissed.

【Reasons for the Ruling】

In this case, the plaintiff, Cui Moumou, is the owner of a property located in Heping District, Shenyang City, at xxx (with a construction area of 43 square meters). The defendant, a certain company, developed and constructed the “xxx” project. The plaintiff claims that his window with number xxx is obstructed by the buildings constructed by the defendant as part of the aforementioned project, and the plaintiff has therefore requested compensation from the defendant.

During the trial, the plaintiff submitted to the court the property ownership certificate and the “Sunlight Analysis Report” issued by Company A. The report indicated that the “window positions not meeting the required sunlight duration criteria” did not include the window positions described by the plaintiff.

The defendant submitted to the court the “Sunlight Analysis Report” issued by Company B, which states that for window position Bxxx-xxx: before construction, the left end was at 4:04 (×:×–×:×); after construction, the left end was at 3:47 (×:×–×:×). Before construction, the right end was at 2:23 (×:×–×:×); after construction, the right end remained at 2:23 (×:×–×:×). Before construction, the window was fully illuminated at 2:23 (×:×–×:×); after construction, the window remained fully illuminated at 2:23 (×:×–×:×). For window position B×-×: before construction, the left end was at 5:35 (×:×–×:×); after construction, the left end was at 4:17 (×:×–×:×). Before construction, the right end was at 5:34 (×:×–×:×); after construction, the right end was at 4:15 (×:×–×:×). Before construction, the window was fully illuminated at 5:33 (×:×–×:×); after construction, the window remained fully illuminated at 4:14 (×:×–×:×).

1. In this case, the appraisal method used by Company A, as provided by the plaintiff, was video recording, which does not meet the statutory requirements. Moreover, the plaintiff’s property is not shown in the appraisal report to have been obstructed from sunlight.
2. According to the defendant’s instruction, Company B was required, pursuant to Article 27 of Document No. 64 issued by the Shenyang Municipal Government in 2006, to prepare the sunshine impact analysis report using genuine software certified by the national construction administrative authority and employed by a legally qualified entity. Based on the sunshine analysis report provided by the defendant, the plaintiff’s property is not subject to any shading.
3. According to Article 24 of the “Regulations on Spacing Between Residential Buildings and Management of Sunlight Exposure in Shenyang City,” “Except in cases where the existing residential buildings do not receive at least two hours of sunlight and the newly constructed building does not affect their sunlight exposure, if a newly constructed building obstructs the sunlight exposure of nearby existing residential buildings, the affected residential buildings must be guaranteed to receive no less than two hours of sunlight on the day of Great Cold.”

[Relevant Statutes]

Article 64 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China: “The parties are responsible for providing evidence to support their claims.”

Article 90 of the “Interpretation by the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China” states: “A party shall provide evidence to substantiate the facts upon which its own claim is based or the facts upon which it refutes the opposing party’s claim, unless otherwise provided by law.”

Article 24 of the “Regulations on Residential Building Spacing and Residential Daylighting Management in Shenyang City” states: “Except in cases where the existing residential buildings already receive less than two hours of daylight and the newly constructed building does not affect their daylighting, if a newly constructed building obstructs the daylighting of nearby existing residential buildings, it shall ensure that the affected residential buildings receive no less than two hours of daylight on the day of Great Cold.”

[Lawyer’s Perspective]

1. In civil litigation cases, the party bearing the burden of proof shall provide sufficient evidence to establish the facts of the case. If the party bearing the burden of proof fails to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the facts it asserts, it shall bear the legal consequences of failing to meet its evidentiary burden. In this case, the plaintiff claims that the defendant’s project has caused shading to the plaintiff’s residence and is seeking compensation from the defendant. Therefore, it is the plaintiff’s responsibility to provide sufficient evidence to establish the fact of the shading. If the plaintiff fails to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the facts upon which its claim is based, the plaintiff shall bear the legal consequences of failing to meet the burden of proof in this case.
2. When a party initiates legal proceedings to protect its rights, it must ensure that the evidence is authentic, relevant, and lawful. First, objectivity and authenticity: This means that the evidentiary materials in a lawsuit must be objective facts that can prove the truth of the case and exist independently of subjective consciousness. Second, relevance of evidence: This means that the facts presented as evidence must not only objectively exist but also have a logical connection to the facts that the case seeks to establish, thereby helping to clarify the true circumstances of the case. Third, legality of evidence: This means that the evidence must be provided by the parties in accordance with legally prescribed procedures, or collected, investigated, and examined by statutory authorities or authorized personnel following legally mandated procedures.
3. In litigation cases, evidence materials subject to special requirements under laws and regulations shall comply with the statutory requirements. In this case, the appraisal method used by Company A, as provided by the plaintiff, was video recording, which does not meet the statutory requirements. The appraisal report on sunlight impact submitted by the defendant, prepared by Company B under the commission of the defendant, complies with legal requirements. Specifically, it was prepared using genuine software certified by the national construction administrative authority and issued by a qualified entity in accordance with Article 27 of Document No. 64 of the Shenyang Municipal Government dated June 2006, “Regulations on Spacing Between Residential Buildings and Management of Residential Sunlight Exposure in Shenyang City.”
4. The right to daylight typically refers to the right of a property owner or user to receive an adequate amount of natural light from outside sources. If a property owner believes that their right to daylight has been infringed upon and seeks compensation through civil litigation, they should be aware that certain conditions must be met. According to Article 24 of the “Regulations on Spacing Between Residential Buildings and Management of Sunlight Exposure in Shenyang City,” “Except in cases where the existing residential buildings do not receive at least two hours of sunlight and the newly constructed building does not affect their sunlight exposure, if a newly constructed building obstructs the sunlight exposure of nearby existing residential buildings, the affected residential buildings must be guaranteed to receive no less than two hours of sunlight on the day of Great Cold.”
5. Before commencing a construction project, real estate development companies should pay close attention to and fully consider the protection of the surrounding residents' right to sunlight, thereby avoiding litigation and compensation claims arising from such issues.