Cassation judgment No. 39/2008/DS-GDT dated december 22, 2008 regarding dispute over housing ownership right

THE SUPREME PEOPLE’S COURT

CASSATION JUDGMENT NO. 39/2008/DS-GDT DATED DECEMBER 22, 2008 REGARDING DISPUTE OVER HOUSING OWNERSHIP RIGHT 

On December 22, 2008, the cassation trial is conducted at the office of the Supreme People’s Court to hear the civil case of “Dispute over housing ownership right" between:

Petitioner:  Mr. Jacques Vo Khac Minh, born in 1941, residing in France (address: 17 Avenu Alphonse Daudet 44420 Piriac/Mer France); temporarily residing at 167/1 Tet Mau Than, neighborhood 5, D4, My Tho city, Tien Giang province; authorized representative: Mrs. Nguyen Thi Tuyet (letter of authorization dated August 19, 2004).

Respondent:  Mrs. Vo Thi Dong Phuong, born in 1955, residing at 23B Do Thanh tenement, ward 4, district 3, Ho Chi Minh City.

Persons with relevant rights and obligations:

1. Mrs. Mauricette Vo Khac Minh (other name: Barabas), born in 1944, authorized representative: Mr. Jacques Vo Khac Minh, her husband (letter of authorization dated January 11, 2005).

2. Mrs. Vo Thi Dong Thao, born in 1962;   

3. Mrs. Vo Thi Dong Nghi, born in 1969;   

4. Mr. Duong Ngoc Minh, born in 1970;

Co-residing at 23B Do Thanh tenement, ward 4, district 3, Ho Chi Minh City.

Authorized representative: Mrs. Vo Thi Dong Phuong (according to the depositions dated January 22, 2002 and June 12, 2002 of the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City). On October 4, 2005 and October 25, 2005, Mr. Duong Ngoc Minh and Mrs. Vo Thi Dong Thao made letters of authorization to authorize Mrs. Phuong as the representative).

FINDING THAT

Representation of the petitioner, Mr. Jacques Vo Khac Minh, in the lawsuit petition dated October 4, 2001 and during the legal proceedings: He is an overseas Vietnamese in France. In earlier time, he sought to buy a house in Ho Chi Minh City which would be a place to live for him after retirement, for his family after repatriation to Vietnam, and for his father (Mr. Vo Van Hoi) and his stepmother (Mrs. Duong Thi Ngoc Anh) and his half siblings (including Mrs. Vo Thi Dong Phuong, Mrs. Vo Thi Dong Thanh, Mrs. Vo Thi Dong Thao) after relocation from Tra Vinh province to Ho Chi Minh City. In 1989, he had sent medicines many times from France to Vietnam (sometimes he brought medicines in person) to Mrs. Phuong for sale and he sent money to Mrs. Phuong in order to buy 23B Do Thanh tenement, ward 4, district 3, Ho Chi Minh City from the family of Mrs. Nguyen Thi Than on September 19, 1989 and rebuild this house (at other time, Mr. Minh declared that his family requested him to give money to buy the house and rebuild it. The house purchase was solely made by Mrs. Phuong; and all related documents were kept by Mrs. Phuong. When rebuilding the house, he and Mrs. Phuong co-signed the “construction contract” with Mr. Vo Thanh Liem (on April 5, 1990); Mrs. Phuong was only the representative of the client party.  Mrs. Phuong sent him a notice of construction progress and price schedule including amounts to buy and rebuild the house, totaling 45.23 taels of gold.

The house at No. 23B Do Thanh tenement, ward 4, district 3, Ho Chi Minh City is his own property, but Mrs. Phuong has occupied it and prevented him and his siblings to live there. As for the abovementioned reasons, he requires Mrs. Phuong to revert the house to him (at other time, he requires Mrs. Phuong to transfer the title of the house to a third party appointed by him).

Representation of the respondent, Mrs. Vo Thi Dong Phuong: Mr. Jacques Vo Khac Minh sent medicines from France to her for sale in order to use the money earned to buy a house and rebuild it as the house at No. 23B Do Thanh tenement, ward 4, district 3, Ho Chi Minh City. When the house was bought (September 19, 1989), she had no household register in Ho Chi Minh City, so she asked her adoptive parents, Mr. Le Van Cam and Mrs. Nguyen Thi Mot, to have their names included in the house purchase documents and the house construction permit dated April 26, 1990 on her behalf. On April 3, 1990, Mr. Cam and Mrs. Mot transferred the title of the house to her (via a deed of gift).

The price schedule sent to Mr. Minh was made by her; total amount used to buy the house and rebuild it is 45 taels of gold (17 taels of gold for house purchase and 28 taels of gold for house rebuilding); the deficit was 10 taels of gold; after that, Mr. Minh sent medicines to her for sale to cover the deficit.

Mr. Jacques Vo Khac Minh gifted her the sum earned from sale of medicines and she used it to buy the house and rebuild it. Mr. Jacques Vo Khac Minh sent medicines to her as a financial support, he helped her to build the house rather than asking her to buy the house on his behalf; in fact, she did not put the house ownership under her name on his behalf; so she refuses to revert the house to Mr. Jacques Vo Khac Minh (she sometimes declared that Mr. Minh sent money to buy the house and rebuild it for his siblings to live and do business; sometimes declared that Mr. Minh sent money to buy the house for her to raise the siblings; and at other time , she declared that Mr. Minh sent medicines for sale to earn money so as to buy the house and Mr. Minh will stay there once he returns to Vietnam. . .). Currently, her three siblings Mr. Duong Ngoc Minh (he carries her mother’s surname), Mrs. Vo Thi Dong Thao, Mrs. Vo Thi Dong Nghi, her, and Mr. Vo Khac Minh Tan (her grandchild) have lived in this house.

On December 3, 2003, Mrs. Phuong made a counterclaim (according to the receipt of court fee advance dated December 17, 2003), stating that Mr. Minh still owes her 41,500 Franc, equivalent to 22 taels of gold and requiring Mr. Minh to repay her this sum.

Representation of persons with relevant rights and obligations:

1. Mrs. Vo Thi Dong Thao (full sister of Mrs. Phuong; half sister of Mr. Jacques Vo Khac Minh), Mrs. Vo Thi Dong Nghi (aka Mrs. Pham Thi Tuyet): Mr. Jacques Vo Khac Minh gifted Mrs. Phuong a sum of money to buy the house at No. 23B Do Thanh tenement; this house is privately owned by Mrs. Phuong. Since 1990, they have lived together with Mrs. Phuong in this house. Hence, they reject the house reclaim of Mr. Jacques Vo Khac Minh because it is unreasonable that he reclaims the sum of money which he previously gifted to her (at other time, Mrs. Thao asserted that she took the advice of Mrs. Phuong to “make a false statement to occupy the house No. 23 Do Thanh tenement” and she expects that Mrs. Phuong will return the house to Mr. Jacques Vo Khac Minh).

2. Mr. Duong Ngoc Minh: Mr. Jacques Vo Khac Minh sent medicines to Mrs. Phuong for sale and Mrs. Phuong used the money earned to buy the house for the family to live. The house No. 23 Do Thanh tenement is private property of Mrs. Phuong.

In the First Instance Civil Judgment No. 965/DS-ST dated June 26, 2002, the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City judged:

1. Reject the petition for resolution of dispute over housing ownership and house reclaiming of Mr. Jacques Vo Khac Minh against Mrs. Vo Thi Dong Phuong associated with the house at No. 23B Do Thanh tenement, ward 4, district 3, Ho Chi Minh City.

2. Determine that the house at No. 23B Do Thanh tenement, ward 4, district 3, Ho Chi Minh City is under legal ownership of Mrs. Vo Thi Dong Phuong.

3. Release and cancel the decision to adopt temporary emergency measures No. 881/QD-KBTS dated December 4, 2001 of the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City regarding distraint of the house at No. 23B Do Thanh tenement, ward 4, district 3.

In addition, the Court of First Instance also decided the court fee.

On June 26, 2002, Mr. Jacques Vo Khac Minh filed an appeal against the entire First Instance Judgment.

At the Appellate Civil Judgment No. 315/DS-PT dated December 11, 2002, the Appellate Court of People’s Supreme Court in Ho Chi Minh City judged:

- Quash the entire First Instance Judgment No. 975/DSST dated June 26, 2002.

- Refer the case file to the Court of First Instance for retrial under first instance procedure.

- Both litigants are not obliged to pay appellate civil court fees.

In the First Instance Civil Judgment No. 1035/2005/DS-ST dated May 24, 2005, the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City judged:

1. Accept partial petition of Mr. Jacques Vo Khac Minh and partial counterclaim of Mrs. Vo Thi Dong Phuong regarding reclaiming house ownership: of the house at 23B Do Thanh tenement, ward 4, district 3, Ho Chi Minh City.

2. Determine that the house No. 23 Do Thanh tenement is under joint ownership of Mr. Jacques Vo Khac Minh and Mrs. Vo Thi Dong Phuong, equivalent to 230.3 taels of gold, in which Mrs. Vo Thi Dong Phuong is entitled to 40 taels of gold, valued at VND 326,000,000, Mr. Jacques Vo Khac Minh is entitled to 45.23 taels of gold (45.23 taels of 9999 gold); and 145.07 taels of gold shall be transferred to the state budget.

3. Hand over the house at No. 23B Do Thanh tenement, ward 4, district 3, Ho Chi Minh City to Mrs. Vo Thi Dong Phuong; Mrs. Vo Thi Dong Phuong shall pay Mr. Jacques Vo Khac Minh VND 368,624,500, equivalent to 45.23 taels of gold in lump sum promptly after the Judgment becomes legally effective. Mrs. Vo Thi Dong Phuong is obliged to transfer VND 1,182,320,500 to the state budget, equivalent to 145.07 taels of 9999 gold.

4. Distrain the house at 23B Do Thanh tenement, ward 4, district 3, Ho Chi Minh City for judgment enforcement.

In addition, the Court of First Instance also decided the court fee.

On May 24, 2005, Mr. Jacques Vo Khac Minh filed an appeal, requesting recognition of his ownership to the house No. 23 Do Thanh tenement; he had completed paperwork for repatriation to Vietnam; and he refused to pay the amount for contribution of Mrs. Phuong; he also refused to transfer 145.07 taels of gold to the state budget.

On May 30, 2005, Mrs. Vo Thi Dong Phuong appealed the entire First Instance Judgment and requested recognition of her ownership to the house No. 23 Do Thanh tenement.

On September 20, 2005, in the “supplemental appeal”, Mrs. Phuong requested:

1. Recognizing that the house No. 23 Do Thanh tenement was bought and rebuilt, despite using the money sent by Mr. Jacques Vo Khac Minh, for all members of the family (4 members of siblings) to own, thus, this house is the common property of 4 siblings; she is only the representative to put the house ownership under her name.

2. She paid the court fee advance (for counterclaim) which required Mr. Jacques Vo Khac Minh to repay her 70,000 Franc, equivalent to 40 taels of gold, but the Court of First Instance did not resolve it but separate that counterclaim to settle in another lawsuit. This separation causes damage to her.

In the Appellate Civil Judgment No. 422/2005/PTDS dated October 28, 2005, the Appellate Court of People’s Supreme Court in Ho Chi Minh City judged:

Pursuant to Clause 2, Article 275 of the Civil Procedure Code.

- Do not accept the appeal of Mr. Jacques Vo Khac Minh. Suspend appellate trial as to the matter involving the appeal of Mr. Jacques Vo Khac Minh.

- Accept partial appeal of Mrs. Vo Thi Dong Phuong.

Correct the First Instance Judgment.

Pursuant to Articles 173, 175, 176, 263, and 264 of the Civil Code.

- Reject the petition for housing ownership reclaiming of Mr. Jacques Vo Khac Minh associated with the house at No. 23B Do Thanh tenement, ward 4, district 3, Ho Chi Minh City.

- Determine that the house at No. 23B Do Thanh tenement, ward 4, district 3, Ho Chi Minh City is under common ownership of: Mrs. Vo Thi Dong Phuong, Mrs. Vo Thi Dong Thanh, Mrs. Vo Thi Dong Thao, Mrs. Vo Thi Dong Nghi (Pham Thi Tuyet) and Mr. Duong Ngoc Minh, represented by Mrs. Vo Thi Dong Phuong.

- Distrain the house at 23B Do Thanh tenement, ward 4, district 3, Ho Chi Minh City.

Other decisions made in the First Instance Judgment took effect.

In addition, the appellate court decided the court fee.

After appellate trial, Mr. Jacques Vo Khac Minh claimed that he did not gift money to Mrs. Phuong for building the house for Mrs. Phuong and the whole family; Mrs. Phuong only put ownership of the house No. 23B Do Thanh tenement under her name on his behalf, but the Court of Appeal determined that he gifted money to Mrs. Phuong to buy that house. This determination was wrongly made and caused damage to his legal interests.

In the Decision No. 137/QD-KNGDT-V5 dated September 10, 2008, the Chief Procurator of the Supreme People’s Procuracy protests the Appellate Judgment No. 422/2005/DSPT dated October 28, 2005 of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme People's Court in Ho Chi Minh City and requests the Council of Judges of the Supreme People's Court to review it under cassation trial, quash the mentioned Appellate Judgment and quash the First Instance Judgment No. 1035/2005/DS-ST dated May 24, 2005 of the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City; refer the case file to the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City for retrial under first-instance procedure to protect interests of the litigants; and consider if the judgment to transfer the related amount to the state budget is still consistent with guidelines for resolution of cases involving Vietnamese people having foreign nationalities and selling or buying real estate in Vietnam, with the consideration below (quotation from the protest):

“Mr. Jacques Vo Khac Minh instituted legal proceedings against Mrs. Vo Thi Dong Phuong to reclaim the ownership of the house at No. 23B Do Thanh tenement, ward 4, district 3, Ho Chi Minh City, Mr. Minh could justify that he sent money and medicines from France to Mrs. Phuong for buying the house. Mrs. Phuong confirmed that she received medicines and money in France currency from Mr. Minh but she claimed that he gifted them to her for buying a house, that is the reason why she may have her name included in the title of the house. Her statement is justified by no evidence.

According to the letters that Mrs. Phuong sent to Mr. Minh notifying the house purchase, house construction and price schedule: deposit, buying price for Mr. Minh’s decision, authorization to Mrs. Phuong (from case file p. 156 to 161). When rebuilding the house, Mr. Minh concluded the contract in person, he and Mrs. Phuong co-signed the construction contract with the contractor (case file p. 169-176).

The First Instance Judgment No. 1035/2005/DSST dated May 24, 2005 of the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City determined that the house is under common ownership of Mr. Minh and Mrs. Phuong. This determination is well-grounded as per the Civil Code. Disagreeing with the First Instance Judgment, Mr. Minh and Mrs. Phuong both appealed it.

In the appellate trial, Mr. Minh was summoned two times by the court but he was absent, the Court of Appeal decided to suspend the appellate trial as to the appeal of Mr. Minh. This suspension is accordant with Clause 2 Article 266 of the Civil Procedure Code. In terms of the case, the Court of Appeal only based on the letters of Mr. Minh indicating that he sent money to the family for business in Ho Chi Minh City to correct the First Instance Judgment: turn down the petition of Mr. Minh for the housing ownership reclaiming. and recognize the house at No. 23B Do Thanh tenement, ward 4, district 3, Ho Chi Minh City is under common ownership of Mrs. Phuong, Mrs. Vo Thi Dong Thao, Dong Nghi, Dong Thanh and Duong Ngoc Minh. Such resolution is deemed unjustified. Because Mr. Minh’s siblings and Mrs. Phuong, despite their participation in legal proceedings as persons with relevant rights and obligations, do not have dispute over the house, after first-instance trial, they all make no appeal, so the Court of Appeal violated Article 276 of the Civil Procedure Code when declaring that they have rights in the house in dispute".

At the cassation court hearing, the representative of the Supreme People’s Procuracy requests the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court to accept the Appeal of the Chief Procurator of the Supreme People’s Court.

CONSIDERING THAT

In terms of court procedures:

On October 4, 2001, Mr. Jacques Vo Khac Minh both filed a lawsuit petition for reclaiming the house for free-rent shelters and a lawsuit petition for housing dispute. In fact, this is a dispute over housing ownership, so it is not the case prescribed in Clause 2 Article 2 of the Resolution No. 58/1998/NQ-UBTVQH-10 dated August 24, 1998 of the Standing Committee of National Assembly on housing-related civil transactions established before July 1, 1991 and the Resolution No. 1037/2006/NQ-UBTVQH-11 dated July 27, 2006 of Standing Committee of the National Assembly on housing-related civil transactions established before July 1, 1991 with involvement of overseas Vietnamese; thus, the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal’s acceptance of the case is considered appropriate jurisdiction.

After first-instance trial, Mr. Jacques Vo Khac Minh and Mrs. Vo Thi Dong Phuong both filed appeals against the entire First Instance Judgment. Therefore, the appeal of Mr. Jacques Vo Khac Minh relates to the appeal of Mrs. Phuong (his appeal is not independent from her appeal) The Court of Appeal claimed the fact that Mr. Jacques Vo Khac Minh was absent though being duly served with the third summon to suspend the appellate trial as to his appeal. This suspension was wrong.

In terms of the content:

There are valid grounds for determining that Mr. Jacques Vo Khac Minh sent medicines from France to Vietnam to his full sister, Mrs. Vo Thi Dong Phuong, for sale and the money earned was used to buy the house at No. 23B Do Thanh tenement, ward 4, district 3, Ho Chi Minh City from Mrs. Pham Thi Than and her children: Mr. Nguyen Trong Tuyen, Mrs. Nguyen Thi Hoa and Mr. Nguyen Tri Tue on September 19, 1989 (Mrs. Phuong has her name included in the handwritten house purchase agreement; the married couple Mr. Le Van Cam and Mrs. Nguyen Thi Mot have their names in the “house purchase agreement” on Mrs. Phuong’s behalf; on April 3, 1990, this married couple transferred the title of the house to Mrs. Phuong via a deed of gift). After that, on March 19, 1990, Mrs. Phuong signed an employment contract with Mr. Vo Thanh Liem to rebuild the house, but Mr. Jacques Vo Khac Minh disagreed, so on April 5, 1990, the parties re-signed the “construction contract” (Mrs. Phuong was the representative of the client party; Mr. Jacques Vo Khac Minh and Mrs. Phuong co-signed the section Party A as the client).

Before buying the house, Mrs. Phuong wrote a letter to Mr. Jacques Vo Khac Minh (on February 11, 1989) as follows:  “…I wish for what you wish to accomplish soon. Your family will have a place to live after coming back, whether temporarily or permanently. “The apple doesn't fall far from the tree”. There’s no denying that your children should come back to their origin…”. After buying the house, Mrs. Phuong sent a letter to Mr. Minh notifying the demolition of the old house and construction of new house and time of topping out (in specific:  “the house was demolished, the date of commencement is April 16”, quoted from the letter dated April 15, 1990; “if you find it convenient, please send medicines to me for sale to earn enough money to build the house”, quoted from the letter dated April 16, 1990; “the roof top of the house will be made on May 15”, quoted from the letter without sending date). After the house was completely built, Mrs. Phuong also sent Mr. Jacques Vo Khac Minh a price schedule specifying that 17 taels of gold was spent on house purchase, 28 taels of gold was spent on house construction, totaling 45 taels of gold; there is a deficit of 10 taels (Mr. Minh sent more medicines to Mrs. Phuong for sale to cover this deficit thereafter).

During the house purchase and construction time, the married couple (Mr. Duong Chi Sanh and Mrs. Huynh Thi Nga) knew that fact. In the letter dated June 22, 1990 sent to Mr. Jacques Vo Khac Minh, Mr. Sanh notified: “the house is being built”… “As for the quality of the construction, it is good”…“Jacques should not worry”. In the deposition dated July 5, 2004, Mrs. Huynh Thi Nga (the witness) declares that “Mr. Minh buys this house for his youngest sibling to live".

However, whether Mr. Minh gifted Mrs. Phuong money earned from sale of medicines to buy the above house; whether Mr. Minh sent medicines for sale to buy the house for his siblings; whether Mr. Minh asked Mrs. Phuong to buy the house and include her name in the titled of the house on his behalf or buy the house for his siblings to live as free-rent shelters. Documents in the case file have not fully justified above questions and depositions of the litigants are apparently inconsistent, in specific:

 Sometimes Mrs. Phuong declared that Mr. Minh sent medicines to her for sale and the money earned would be used to buy and build the house for siblings in Vietnam to live and do business; sometimes she declared that this house is for Mr. Minh to live after he returns to Vietnam; sometimes she declared that Mr. Minh gifted the money earned from sale of medicines to her and she used this sum to buy the house, thus this house is her private property; and at other times, she declared that Mr. Minh sent money to buy and rebuild the house for family (4 siblings) to jointly own. There was even a time when Mrs. Vo Thi Dong Thao asserted that as taking Mrs. Phuong’s advice “she made a false statement to occupy the house No. 23B Do Thanh tenement” and she expects that Mrs. Phuong will return the house to Mr. Jacques Vo Khac Minh. There was even a time when Mrs. Vo Thi Dong Thanh sent a letter (dated September 12, 2000) to guide Mr. Jacques Vo Khac Minh to sue Mrs. Phuong since Mrs. Phuong intends to occupy the house of Mr. Minh. At other times, Mrs. Thao, Mrs. Vo Thi Dong Nghi and Mr. Duong Ngoc Minh confirmed that the house No. 23 Do Thanh tenement is under ownership of Mrs. Phuong.

Mrs. Than and her 3 children is the buyer of the house (in 1989) but the court failed to take their statements for the resolution of the case. The Court of First Instance was ungrounded when determining that the house No. 23 Do Thanh tenement is under joint ownership of Mr. Jacques Vo Khac Minh and Mrs. Phuong; on the other hand, the Court of First Instance based on no legal basis to declare confiscation of 145.07 taels of gold (transferred to state budget) (total value of house and land is 230.3 taels, in which Mrs. Phuong’s contribution is 40 taels; Mr. Minh’s portion is 45.23 taels, the difference is 145.07 taels). The Court of Appeal did not consider the fact that Mr. Jacques Vo Khac Minh and Mrs. Phuong signed the construction contract for rebuilding the house; the price schedule which Mrs. Phuong sent to Mr. Minh; inconsistencies in depositions of the respondent and persons with relevant rights and obligations; and statements of the witnesses (Mrs. Huynh Thi Nga; Mr. Nguyen Thanh Dinh…) and contents of letters which Mrs. Phuong sent Mr. Minh before buying the house. And the Court of Appeal has not required Mrs. Phuong to present and clarify the letter which Mr. Jacques Vo Khac Minh sent to Mrs. Phuong on January 19, 1989 (because in the letter that Mrs. Phuong sent to Mr. Minh on February 11, 1989, Mrs. Phuong states that she clearly understand:  “notes which are mentioned in the letter on Tuesday, January 19, 1989…”) and the letters which Mrs. Phuong sent Mr. Minh after buying the house; but the Court of Appeal based on two letters of Mr. Minh (with below contents: Mr. Minh sent medicines for not giving Mrs. Phuong only but for the whole family, quoted from the letter dated October 16, 1998) and “buying house for the whole family to do business easily in Sai Gon”, quoted from the letter dated April 5, 2000), which do not clearly prove that Mr. Minh buy the house for siblings of Mrs. Phuong. Therefore, the Court of Appeal was ungrounded when rejecting the petition of Mr. Minh and determining the house under joint ownership of: Mrs. Vo Thi Dong Phuong, Mrs. Vo Thi Dong Thanh, Mrs. Vo Thi Dong Thao, Mrs. Vo Thi Dong Nghi (Pham Thi Tuyet) and Mr. Duong Ngoc Minh (while Mrs. Thanh only participated in the case as a witness).

Accordingly, there is a need to retry the case in order to require the litigants to provide proof justifying that: if there are valid grounds for determining that Mr. Minh sent medicines to Mrs. Phuong for sale and use of the money earned to buy the house for the whole family, the house should be recognized as under joint ownership; if there are valid grounds for determining that Mr. Minh sent medicines to Mrs. Phuong for sale and use of the money earned to buy the house on his behalf, it is advisable to consider the original amount of money to buy house is owned by Mr. Minh and the difference# divided into halves to Mr. Minh and Mrs. Phuong.

According to facts and matters, pursuant to Clause 3 Article 297 and Clause 2 of Article 299 of the Civil Procedure Code, 

HEREBY DECIDES

1. Quash the Appellate Civil Judgment No. 422/2005/DSPT dated October 28, 2005 of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme People's Court in Ho Chi Minh City and quash the First Instance Civil Judgment on the case “dispute over housing ownership" between the petitioner, Mr. Jacques Vo Khac Minh, and the respondent, Mrs. Vo Thi Dong Phuong, persons with relevant rights and obligations, Mrs. Mauricette Vo Khac Minh (also known as Barabas), Mrs. Vo Thi Dong Thao, Mrs. Vo Thi Dong Nghi (Pham Thi Tuyet), Mr. Duong Ngoc Minh.

 2. Refer the case file to People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City for re-conducting the first-instance trial as per the law.     

Grounds for quashing the Appellate Judgment and First Instance Judgment:

Retry the case under first instance procedure towards clarifying if the petitioner bought the house for the whole family or he asked the respondent to put the house ownership under her name on his behalf to resolve the case as per the law.