What is the content of the Precedent No. 16/2017/AL on recognition of contracts for transfer of land use rights as inheritance transferred by one of the co-heirs in Vietnam?
- What is the overview of the Precedent No. 16/2017/AL on recognition of contracts for transfer of land use rights as inheritance transferred by one of the co-heirs in Vietnam?
- What is the content of the Precedent No. 16/2017/AL on recognition of contracts for transfer of land use rights as inheritance transferred by one of the co-heirs in Vietnam?
- What is the Court's opinion on Precedent No. 16/2017/AL on recognition of contracts for transfer of land use rights as inheritance transferred by one of the co-heirs in Vietnam?
What is the overview of the Precedent No. 16/2017/AL on recognition of contracts for transfer of land use rights as inheritance transferred by one of the co-heirs in Vietnam?
In Decision 299/QD-CA in 2017, an overview of Precedent No. 16/2017/AL on recognition of contracts for transfer of land use rights as inheritance transferred by one of the co-heirs is clearly stated as follows:
Precedent No. 16/2017/AL on recognition of contracts for transfer of land use rights as inheritance transferred by one of the co-heirs
Approved by the Council of Judges of the Supreme People's Court on December 14, 2017 and announced under Decision No. 299/QD-CA dated December 28, 2017 of the Chief Justice of the Supreme People's Court.
Source of Precedent:
Cassation Decision No. 573/2013/DS-GDT dated December 16, 2013 of the Civil Court of the Supreme People's Court on the civil case "Property inheritance dispute" in Vinh Phuc province between the plaintiff and Ms. Phung Thi H1, Ms. Phung Thi N1, Ms. Phung Thi H2, Ms. Phung Thi P and the defendant Mr. Phung Van T; People with related rights and obligations include Ms. Phung Thi N2 and Ms. Phung Thi H3.
Location of Precedent content:
Paragraph 2, section “Comments of the Court”.
Overview of Precedent content:
- Precedent situation:
Inheritance is real estate that has been transferred by one of the co-heirs. The other co-heirs knew and did not object to that transfer. The transferred money was used to take care of the lives of the co-heirs. The transferee has been issued a land use right certificate.
- Legal solutions:
In this case, the Court must recognize the contract for transfer of land use rights as legal and the transferred land area is no longer part of the inheritance to be divided but belongs to the transferee's use rights.
Legal provisions related to Precedent:
Clause 2, Article 170, Article 234, Article 634, Article 697 of the 2005 Civil Code (equivalent to Clause 2, Article 221, Article 223, Article 612, Article 500 of the 2015 Civil Code).
Keywords of Precedent:
“Establish ownership according to agreement”; "Heritage"; “Inheritance as real estate”; "Co-heir"; "Land use right Transfer".
What is the content of the Precedent No. 16/2017/AL on recognition of contracts for transfer of land use rights as inheritance transferred by one of the co-heirs in Vietnam? (Image from the Internet)
What is the content of the Precedent No. 16/2017/AL on recognition of contracts for transfer of land use rights as inheritance transferred by one of the co-heirs in Vietnam?
In Decision 299/QD-CA in 2017, the content of Precedent No. 16/2017/AL on recognition of contracts for transfer of land use rights as inheritance transferred by one of the co-heirs is clearly stated as follows:
According to the lawsuit dated April 2, 2011 and subsequent testimonies, plaintiff Ms. Phung Thi H1, Ms. Phung Thi N1, Ms. Phung Thi P, Ms. Phung Thi H2 presented:
The plaintiff's parents, Mr. Phung Van N and Mrs. Phung Thi G, gave birth to 6 children: Phung Thi N1, Phung Thi N2, Phung Thi H2, Phung Van T, Phung Thi P, Phung Thi H1.
The common property of Mr. Phung Van N and Ms. Phung Thi G is a level 4 house and auxiliary buildings on a land area of 398m2 in area L, ward M, city N, Vinh Phuc province, the land origin belongs to his father. leave. On July 7, 1984, Mr. Phung Van N died (before he died, he did not leave a will). Mrs. Phung Thi G and Mr. Phung Van T managed and used the above house and land.
In 1991, Ms. Phung Thi G transferred to Mr. Phung Van K a part of the above land area with an area of 131m2, the remaining area of 267m2. In 1999, Ms. Phung Thi G was granted a land use right certificate. Ms. Phung Thi G wanted to give her daughter, Ms. Phung Thi H1, a part of her land to build a house because Ms. Phung Thi H1's situation was to get married far away, her husband died, so she wanted her to come live with her, but he Phung Van T holds the land use right certificate, so Ms. Phung Thi G cannot separate the land for Ms. Phung Thi H1.
Therefore, she sued the Court to force Mr. Phung Van T to return the land use right certificate to Ms. Phung Thi G. The Court forced Mr. Phung Van T to return the land use right certificate to Ms. Phung Thi. G but Mr. Phung Van T did not pay. Therefore, in March 2010, Ms. Phung Thi G made a will with the following content: Leave to Ms. Phung Thi H1 an area of land of 90m2 and all the forestry trees on the land area with the following sides: Bordering the area to the East. Mrs. Phung Thi G's land, the West borders Mr. N's house, the South borders T street, the North borders Mr. C's house. When making the will, Ms. Phung Thi G was completely alert and healthy, there were witnesses and the will was made. has been certified by the People's Committee of Ward M. The entire area of 398m2 belongs to Ms. Phung Thi G because when Mr. Phung Van N died, Ms. Phung Thi G had full rights to use it.
On December 19, 2010, Ms. Phung Thi G died, and Mr. Phung Van T and his wife still managed and used the entire assets. Now the plaintiffs request the Court to resolve the division of the inheritance according to the will of Ms. Phung Thi G leaving 90m2 for Ms. Phung Thi H1, the remaining 177m2 is proposed to be divided according to the law, and the inheritance of Ms. Ms. Phung Thi N1, Ms. Phung Thi P, Ms. Phung Thi H2 let Ms. Phung Thi H1 use. In addition, the plaintiffs did not request the Court to resolve the property on the land and the agricultural land area of Ms. Phung Thi G.
Defendant Mr. Phung Van T presented by Ms. Phung Thi H3 (wife) and also a person with related rights and obligations: she confirmed the relationship between parents, siblings in the family, and parents' property. What is left behind is the land area of 398m2 in area L, Ward M, City N and the time of death of the parents as presented by the plaintiffs is correct, but the entire construction on the land was built by husband and wife in 1995. 1997.
In 1991, Ms. Phung Thi G arbitrarily sold 131m2 to Mr. Phung Van K without discussing with Mr. Phung Van T, how much money she used for what Mr. Phung Van T did not know. By 1999, Ms. Phung Thi G was granted a certificate of land use rights for the remaining area of 267.4 m2. Mr. Phung Van K was also granted a certificate of land use rights purchased from Ms. Phung Thi G.
When Mrs. Phung Thi G was alive, I don't know whether she made a will or not. Now the sisters in the family are suing to divide the inheritance according to the will and according to the law. Mr. Phung Van T disagrees because his parents have only one son, so he uses it to live. and ancestor worship, not agreeing on division of inheritance. In addition, Ms. Phung Thi G also has an area of agricultural land, but Mr. Phung Van T did not request to divide the inheritance.
Persons with related rights and obligations, Ms. Phung Thi N2 presented: she confirmed the relationship between her parents, siblings in the family, the property left by her parents, an area of land of 398m2 in area L, ward M, City N and the time the parents died as presented by the plaintiffs are correct. In 1991, her mother transferred an area of 131 square meters to Mr. Phung Van K. When she transferred it, everyone knew about it, but she didn't know how much it was. She only knew that her mother used that money to pay off debt. and raise the children.
The remaining area of 267.4m2, in 1999, her mother was granted a land use right certificate in the name of Phung Thi G, which Mr. Phung Van T is currently managing. When her mother was alive, she made a will or not. She doesn't know now that Ms. Phung Thi N1, Ms. Phung Thi H1, Ms. Phung Thi H2, Ms. Phung Thi P requested to divide the inheritance of the above land area, but she did not agree because her father did not agree. Her mother only had Phung Van T as a son, so she had to let Phung Van T live and worship. If the Court decides to divide the inheritance according to the law, she will not accept it but will let Mr. Phung Van T enjoy it.
What is the Court's opinion on Precedent No. 16/2017/AL on recognition of contracts for transfer of land use rights as inheritance transferred by one of the co-heirs in Vietnam?
In Decision 299/QD-CA in 2017, it clearly states the Court's opinion on Precedent No. 16/2017/AL on recognition of contracts for transfer of land use rights as inheritance transferred by one of the co-heirs as follows:
[1] Based on the documents in the case file, the area of 398m2 of land located in L quarter, M ward, N city, Vinh Phuc originated as common property of Mr. Phung Van N and his wife. and Ms. Phung Thi G. Mr. Phung Van N and Ms. Phung Thi G have 06 children together: Ms. Phung Thi H1, Ms. Phung Thi N1, Ms. Phung Thi H2, Mr. Phung Van T, Ms. Phung Thi P, Ms. Phung Thi N2 . On July 7, 1984, Mr. Phung Van N died without leaving a will. Ms. Phung Thi G and Mr. Phung Van T managed and used the above house and land.
[2] In 1991, Ms. Phung Thi G transferred to Mr. Phung Van K an area of 131m2 out of the total area of 398m2 of the above land plot; The remaining land area of the plot is 267.4m2. In 1999, Ms. Phung Thi G was granted a certificate of land use rights, with an area of 267.4 m2. Ms. Phung Thi G and Mr. Phung Van T and his wife still manage and use this land. Mrs. Phung Thi G transferred the land to Mr. Phung Van K, and Mrs. Phung Thi G's children all knew, but no one had any objections. Mrs. Phung Thi G's children testified that Mrs. Phung Thi G sold the land to take care of herself. her life and that of her children. Now, Mr. Phung Van K has also been granted a land use right certificate by the state agency. Therefore, there is a basis to determine that Ms. Phung Thi G's children agreed to let Ms. Phung Thi G transfer the above 131m2 area to Mr. Phung Van K. The Court of Appeal did not include Ms. Phung Thi G's land area. sold to Mr. Phung Van K the assets to divide are well-founded. The Court of First Instance determined that the inheritance of the total land area of 398m2 (including the land sold to Mr. Phung Van K) for division was incorrect.
[3] On December 19, 2010, Ms. Phung Thi G died. Before her death, she left a will dated March 5, 2009, with content to leave it to Ms. Phung Thi H1 (daughter of Ms. Phung Thi G). area of 90m2 of land in the total area of 267m2 of land above, the will is certified by the People's Committee of Ward M on March 7, 2009. Although the will was made and notarized on the same day through the opinion of the Ward People's Committee and the testimonies of the witnesses in the will, there is evidence to determine that Ms. Phung Thi G made the will when she was still of sound mind and spirit. The content of the will was according to Ms. Phung Thi G's wishes, so the two-level Court accepted the will as reasonable and reasonable.
[4] However, the area of 267m2 of land is in the name of Mrs. Phung Thi G, but was formed during the marriage, so it must be determined as common property of the couple Mr. Phung Van N and Mrs. Phung Thi G, which has not been divided. Ms. Phung Thi G only has the right to dispose of 1/2 of the land area out of the total area of 267 square meters of common land between her and her husband. Therefore, the inheritance left by Mrs. Phung Thi G is 1/2 of the property (133.5m2) divided according to the will to Ms. Phung Thi H1 (daughter of Mrs. Phung Thi G) is 90m2, the remaining is 43m2. 5m2 is divided into 5 remaining shares (in which Ms. N2 gives up the inheritance to Mr. Phung Van T; Ms. Phung Thi H2, Ms. Phung Thi N1 and Ms. Phung Thi P give up the inheritance to Ms. Phung Thi H1). Regarding 1/2 of the land area in the total area of 267m2 of common land between husband and wife, which is the inheritance left by Mr. Phung Van N, the statute of limitations for inheritance division has now expired. Mr. Phung Van T is one of the unequal heirs. If you want to divide, according to the provisions of subsection 2.4, section 2, part I of Resolution No. 02/2004/NQ-HDTP dated August 10, 2004 of the Council of Judges of the Supreme People's Court, you are not eligible to divide assets. common property, so whoever is managing and using this land area can continue to manage and use it.
[5] The Court of Appeal determined that the entire area of 267m2 of land is the inheritance of Ms. Phung Thi G to divide according to her will to Ms. Phung Thi H1 90m2 of land and the remaining land of 177.4m2 to be divided according to the law by 5 Participation is not correct.
[6] In addition, Mr. Phung Van T did not appeal, but the Court declared that Mr. Phung Van T must bear 200,000 VND in appeal court fees. Ms. Phung Thi N1, Ms. Phung Thi H2, Ms. Phung Thi P voluntarily gave up their shares to Ms. Phung Thi H1 and was accepted by the Court. Ms. Phung Thi H1 is a poor household and was exempted from all court fees, but the Court granted permission. The judge's refusal to return the first-instance court fee advance to Ms. Phung Thi N1, Ms. Phung Thi H2, and Ms. Phung Thi P is all incorrect. Therefore, the protest of the Director of the Supreme People's Procuracy has grounds for acceptance.
LawNet