Is a birth certificate valid for guaranteeing a minor under eighteen on behalf of their father?

This article is reprinted from: Shangqiu Daily

Host of this column: Wang Bing Illustration: Hu Liping

Basic case facts: On November 20, 2023, Wang borrowed 500k yuan from the bank for business operations and entrusted a guarantee company to provide joint liability guarantee for the loan. On the same day, to ensure worry-free recovery, Wang’s daughter Wang Me and brother Wang Min signed a “Guarantee and Counter-Guarantee Contract” with the guarantee company, providing joint liability guarantee and counter-guarantee for Wang’s loan. The contract was signed online via mobile phone, including real-name authentication and facial recognition. After the loan matured, because Wang failed to repay, the guarantee company compensated the bank for principal and interest totaling more than 400,000 yuan in March 2025. Subsequently, the guarantee company sued in court, demanding Wang repay the compensation and liquidated damages, and requiring Wang Me and Wang Min to bear joint guarantee and counter-guarantee responsibilities. Wang Me’s birth date on her birth certificate is November 30, 2005, but her ID states her date of birth as October 25, 2005.

Court hearing: The first-instance court ruled that Wang Me and Wang Min bear joint liability for Wang’s debt. Dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment, Wang Me appealed to the Intermediate People’s Court. The second instance held that according to Article 15 of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China, the birth and death dates of a natural person are based on the dates recorded in the birth and death certificates. According to the birth certificate, Wang Me was under 18 years old when signing the contract involved in this case, but over 16, thus classified as a person with limited civil capacity. Article 19 of the Civil Code states: “Minors over eight years old are persons with limited civil capacity, and their civil legal acts shall be performed by their legal representatives or with their legal representatives’ consent or ratification…” Providing guarantees for others’ debts usually involves significant property responsibilities, which clearly exceed the understanding and capacity of minors based on their age and intelligence, and are not valid civil acts that minors can perform independently. The counter-guarantee contract involved in this case is invalid due to violation of the above legal provisions, and Wang Me does not bear responsibility for Wang’s repayment to the guarantee company or the liquidated damages. In summary, the second-instance court lawfully reversed the first-instance judgment and dismissed the guarantee company’s claim against Wang Me.

Judge’s statement: Liu Xiaojing, head of the Environment and Resources Trial Division of the Intermediate People’s Court, a fourth-level senior judge, believes that the basic principle of guardianship is to act in the best interest of the ward. As a legal representative and guardian, their duty is to protect the interests of minors, but using their legal representative status to make minors guarantee their debts clearly does not conform to the principle of acting in the “best interest of the ward.” Minors are not scapegoats for debts; making a daughter pay off her parents’ debts essentially shifts commercial risks onto minors, which violates the legislative intent of guardianship. Parents are protectors of their children, not risk shifters. Under no circumstances should family affection be used to coerce children or transfer debt pressure onto them.