Typically, in the judgment 230/2018/DS-PT dated November 22, 2018 of the People's Court of Ca Mau province, the first-instance trial of the case of the dispute over the aisle between plaintiff Mr. Lam Van T and Ms. Duong Thanh H with defendant Mr. Tran Tai T, Ms. Tran Kim H as follows:
"The land in dispute between the involved parties is determined to be a road with a width of 04m. This land belongs to the parcel of land 234 owned by Mr. T and Mrs. H in the land use right certificate with an area of 275m2. According to measurements is actually 278.1m2, built by Mr. T and Mrs. H to rent out a house for Ms. Nguyen Thi Ch.
The disputed land is currently a public walkway, shared by the plaintiffs and many households living in the alley, which has been legally effective by the appellate judgment No. 197/2002/PT-DS. Ms. Th and Mr. T are the executors who have completed this judgment, but on April 21, 2014, Ms. Th and Mr. T transferred the shared walkway land to Mr. T and Ms. H with an area of 275m2 on the land is the common path. Mr. T and Ms. H requested the replacement of land use right certificates in the names of Mr. T and Mrs. H. Because Mr. T and Mrs. Th did not provide the appellate judgment No. 197/2002/PT-DS of the People's Court of the People's Court. In Ca Mau province, the Land Registration Office does not know the land use situation according to the judgment. Therefore, Mr. T and Ms. H were granted land use right certificates. After obtaining the land use right certificate, Mr. T and Ms. H applied for a construction permit and were approved by the People's Committee of City C. Since then, Mr. T and Mrs. H have built a house on the land that is licensed to build, making the plaintiffs and some households in the alley have no way to go to Nguyen Tat Th street.
The People's Court of Ca Mau province ruled:
Cancellation of the land use right certificate with a land area of 275m2 in parcel 234, issued by the People's Committee of City C, in the names of Mr. Tran Tai T and Ms. Tran Kim H, with an area of 275m2.
Cancelled the land lease contract on May 29, 2018 and the house lease contract on May 5, 2018 between Mr. Tran Tai T and Ms. Tran Kim H and Ms. Nguyen Thi Ch.
Forcing Mr. Tran Tai T and Mrs. Tran Kim H to dismantle all the houses and structures built on the land at parcel 234.
Currently, there is no specific law on the common passage, but the common passage can be understood through Article 254 of the 2015 Civil Code as follows:
Article 254. Right of passage
1. An owner of immoveable property which is surrounded by immoveable properties of other owners such that there is no exit has the right to request one of the owners of adjoining immoveable properties to provide it with a passage to a public road on their land.
The passage shall be opened in the adjoining immoveable property which is deemed to be the most convenient and reasonable, taking into consideration the special characteristics of the location, the interests of the immoveable property which does not have an exit, and what will cause the least damage to the immoveable property through which the passage is created.
The owner of the immovable property eligible for the passage must compensate for the obliged immovable property, unless otherwise agreed.
2. The location and the length, width and height of the passage shall be agreed by the owners in order to ensure convenient passage and minimize inconvenience to the parties. If there are any disputes regarding the passage, the parties may request the authorized State body to resolve.
3. Where immoveable property is divided into more than one portion for different owners or users, upon division, necessary passages must be provided, without compensation, to persons in the interior as provided in Clause 2 of this Article.
Understandably, the common way is in the case when a real estate is surrounded by other real estate without a way to the public road, he will have the right to ask the owner of that enclosed real estate for give themselves a path on their land for ease of travel, and that passage shall be shared by the person whose property is besieged and the owner of the property adjacent to it.
In this judgment, although they have been granted a certificate of land use rights and a permit to build a house, this land has been declared by the court to be the previous common path, so Mr. T and Mrs. H could not build a house or other construction on top. This construction affects the interests of other households. Therefore, forcing Mr. T and Mrs. H to dismantle the house on the shared land and return the shared land to everyone.
In fact, disputes arising related to the common passage are quite common. When this dispute arises, families should first reconcile themselves. If conciliation is not possible, a written request for conciliation may be submitted to the People's Committee of the commune, ward or township where the disputed land is located. If the conciliation fails, then file a petition to the People's Court of the district where the land parcel is located to request settlement.