Real estate purchase in community of accrued gains

The whole discussion here is completely absurd: A woman allegedly INSISTS for EMOTIONAL reasons that a higher share be registered to her for a property than she actually contributes??? What is supposed to be emotional about that??? That is pure rationality, involving financial considerations, i.e., cool calculations, but emotions are e.g. grief, joy, or suffering. It may be that the woman is emotionally attached to the property itself, associating certain things with it, etc., but that is something completely different from the question of how the (legal) financing arrangement should be specifically structured.

If the woman's heart is attached to the property, one could make a contract that in the event of a separation she receives an option to buy the entire house. But apparently that is not what the woman is about, rather there are purely financial considerations at play, and very grotesque ones at that.

I would make it very clear to this woman that I do not accept this 50/50 purchase with an actual 75/25 contribution. And if she insists on her very strange position, I would separate from this woman as quickly as possible; trouble is already programmed in, and not only regarding the problem underlying the thread. In any case, I would not spend a second trying to find a solution, but instead would prefer to invest the time saved in searching for a more normal woman.

No, because then the woman participates less in the joint increase in value.

So what? She also contributed significantly less capital. And the increase in value is not even guaranteed.

Yes, then they should not have married and especially not without a prenuptial agreement.

Yes. However, the man could also simply refuse to comply with her demand for "emotional reasons" (such nonsense).

By the way, prenuptial agreements can be made at any time. Even when the divorce is already a done deal.