Please help me analyze the following case.

This issue involves historical issues and has its own characteristics. Considering both historical factors and realistic conditions. According to the constitution of our country, the land in rural and suburban areas belongs to the collective except that it belongs to the state according to the law. The Land Management Law stipulates that land collectively owned by farmers shall be registered by the people's government at the county level, and certificates shall be issued to confirm ownership. If the land collectively owned by farmers is used for non-agricultural construction according to law, the people's government at the county level shall register and issue certificates to confirm the right to use the construction land. China implements an inseparable ownership certificate system for land and houses. Historically, since 1989, the teachers in this village have been officially established and enjoy the national financial salary. At the same time, the local government has not issued certificates to rural collective organizations to confirm land ownership. At the same time, the state finance has invested many times, and the school assets have been transformed into state-owned assets. The Constitution stipulates that socialist public property is sacred and inviolable. The state protects socialist public property. It is forbidden for any organization or individual to occupy or destroy state and collective property by any means. Therefore, whether the villagers claim to be owned by the villagers or the town government claims to be owned by the whole town collectively, it will inevitably lead to the loss of state-owned assets, which is contrary to the basic principles of the Constitution. So 1, the property right of the school building belongs to the state. 2. There is no preemptive right in Lu.