Overview of the content of 15 current civil precedents in Vietnam

No

Precedents in Vietnam

Overview of Precedent

Content of the Precedent

1

Precedent 02/2016/AL on dispute over property reclaim

In cases where Vietnamese people residing abroad have spent money to receive land use rights transfer and ask someone in the country to accept the land use rights transfer on their behalf, when resolving disputes, the Court must consider and calculate the effort to preserve, preserve, and embellish to increase the value of land use rights for the person in whose name the household is named; In case it is not possible to determine the exact effort of that person, it is necessary to determine the person who actually paid to receive the transfer of land use rights and the person whose name was transferred to the household's land use rights had equal efforts to divide the additional value of the difference compared to the original amount received from the original transfer of land use rights.

"Although Ms. Thanh was the one who spent 21.99 taels of gold to transfer the land (equivalent to about 27,047,700 VND), the transfer documents were in Mr. Tam's name. After receiving the transfer, Mr. Tam managed the land, then transferred it to someone else. Thus, it should have been determined that Mr. Tam had contributed efforts in preserving, preserving, and embellishing the land to increase the value of the land, so the above amount (after deducting Ms. Thanh's principal equivalent to 21.99 gold taels) had to be determined as the joint profit of Ms. Thanh and Mr. Tam. At the same time, determine Mr. Tam's efforts to give Mr. Tam a portion corresponding to his efforts, which is correct and ensures the rights of the litigants (in case Mr. Tam's efforts cannot be accurately determined, it must be determined that Ms. Thanh and Mr. Tam have equal efforts to divide).

2

Precedent 03/2016/AL on divorce

In the event that the parents have given the son and his wife an area of land and the son and his wife have built a permanent house on that area of land as a place to live; When the son and his wife built a house, his parents and other family members had no objections; If the son and his wife have used the house and land continuously, openly, and stably, and have conducted a land declaration and been granted a land use right certificate, it must be determined that the son and his wife were given land use rights.

“According to verification at the People's Committee of Van Tao commune, in 2001 the commune organized households in Van Tao commune to register to declare for the issuance of certificates of use rights and households declared at the village headquarters (BL 103). All households in the commune are aware of this land declaration policy. Mr. Phac is the landowner but did not declare it. Mr. Nam is on the land and is the one who declares and completes the certification procedures. On December 21, 2001, Mr. Nam was granted a land use right certificate U060645 in the name of Mr. Pham Gia Nam. The couple built a solid 2-storey house in 2002, and in 2005, they built a 3rd floor tum. Mr. Phac and the brothers and sisters in Mr. Nam's family all knew about the above construction by Mr. Nam and his wife, Hong, but no one had any comments. Thus, from the time the certificate was granted (2001) until the divorce of Mr. Nam and Ms. Hong (2009), Mr. Phac's family had no complaints about the grant of land and building this house. That shows the will of Mr. Phac's family to give Mr. Nam and Ms. Hong the above land area. Therefore, Mr. Phac and Mr. Nam's statement that Mr. Nam arbitrarily declared the land documents without Mr. Phac's knowledge has no basis for acceptance. Thus, there is evidence to confirm that Ms. Hong's testimony about Mr. Phac's family giving them the above land area is well-founded. 

Therefore, the fact that the Courts at all levels found that Mr. Nam went to make land documents that Mr. Phac did not know and that Ms. Hong declared that her husband's family had given it to them but there was no evidence to prove it, to determine that the land area of 80m2 in Van Hoa village, Van Tao commune, Thuong Tin district, Hanoi city is the property of Mr. Pham Gia Phac's household; at the same time, forcing Mr. Nam and Ms. Hong to return the land to Mr. Phac's family is not right. It is necessary to determine that the above disputed land area is the common property of Mr. Nam, Ms. Hong, and his wife; And when dividing, it must be considered that Mr. Nam has contributed more effort to divide according to the efforts of each party, and it is necessary to base on the need for accommodation to divide the items between the parties to ensure the rights of the litigants.”

3

Precedent 04/2016/AL on disputes over land use rights transfer contracts

In cases where the real estate is the common property of a husband and wife, only one person signs the contract to transfer the real estate to another person; the other person does not sign the contract; If there are enough grounds to determine that the transferor has received the full amount as agreed, the person who did not sign the contract knows and uses the real estate transfer money; the transferee of the real estate has received, managed, and used that real estate publicly; if the person who does not sign the contract knows and has no objections, it must be determined that he or she agrees with the transfer of real estate.

“Regarding the house and land purchase and sale contract dated April 26, 1996: The transfer of houses and land took place in 1996. After buying the house and land, Mr. Tien and Mrs. Ty paid in full, received the house and land, repaired the ground, repaired the house, and let the children live. Meanwhile, Mr. Ngu and Mrs. Phan's family still live on the remaining land area, adjacent to Mr. Tien and Mrs. Ty's house. According to the testimony of Mr. Ngu and Mrs. Phan's children, after selling the house and land to Mrs. Ty and her husband, Mr. Ngu and Mrs. Phan divided the gold among the children. On the other hand, after transferring and handing over the real estate to Mr. Tien and Mrs. Ty, on April 26, 1996, Mr. Ngu also wrote a "commitment letter" with the content of borrowing back the transferred house and land to live in when rebuilding a house on the remaining land; and in fact, Ms. Phan and Mr. Ngu, her husband and wife, used Ms. Ty and Mr. Tien's portion of the house and land when building the house. Thus, there is a basis to determine that Ms. Phan knew that there was a transfer of house and land between Mr. Ngu, Mr. Tien, and Ms. Ty, and Ms. Phan agreed and jointly carried out the transaction. Therefore, Ms. Phan's complaint that Mr. Ngu transferred the property to Ms. Ty and her husband without her knowledge is unfounded."

4

Precedent 05/2016/AL on inheritance dispute

In an inheritance dispute case, there is a litigant who is entitled to part of the inheritance and has contributed to the management and improvement of the inheritance but does not agree to divide the inheritance (because the statute of limitations for initiating lawsuits regarding inheritance has expired); there is no specific requirement to consider their contributions to the management and improvement of the inheritance; If the Court decides to divide the inheritance among the heirs, it must consider their contributions because the request not to divide the inheritance is greater than the request to consider their efforts.

"Mr. Hung died in 1978. According to the provisions of the Law on Marriage and Family 1959, Mr. Trai is entitled to 1/7 of Mr. Hung's inheritance. The property Mr. Trai enjoys from Mr. Hung is the common property of Mr. Trai and his wife, Mrs. Tu. Mrs. Tu died in 1980, Mrs. Tu's heirs include Mr. Trai and 03 children of Mr. Trai and Mrs. Tu, including Ms. Phuong.

Although Ms. Phuong is not the first heir of Mr. Hung and Mr. Ngu, she is the granddaughter of the two men and has a lot of effort in managing and spending money to repair the house; However, during the process of resolving the case, Ms. Phuong did not request to consider the effort because Ms. Phuong believed that the statute of limitations for inheritance division had expired and did not agree to return the land and property to the heirs. Thus, Ms. Phuong's request to determine benefits is greater than the request to consider effort; however, the first instance and appellate courts have not considered Ms. Phuong's efforts and have not thoroughly resolved the litigant's request."

5

Precedent 06/2016/AL on inheritance dispute

In an inheritance dispute case where the heir is overseas, if the Court has performed a judicial mandate and collected evidence in accordance with the provisions of law but still cannot determine the addresses of those people, the Court will still resolve the plaintiff's request; If the inheritance is determined, the inheritance is identified, and the person leaving the inheritance does not have a will, the inheritance will be resolved for the plaintiff according to the provisions of law; The inheritance assets of absent people whose addresses cannot be determined will be temporarily handed over to those living in the country to manage and later hand over to the absent heirs.

“The Court of First Instance should have carried out judicial mandate procedures according to regulations and collected evidence for Mr. Duong and Ms. Thao, to clarify when these people died; and if these two dead people still have heirs, ask them about their views on resolving the case. Depending on each case, new evidence is used to resolve the case according to regulations. If no further evidence can be collected, Mr. Hung's request for inheritance according to law must still be resolved; The inheritance of Mr. Duong and Mrs. Thao will be temporarily handed over to those living in the country to manage so that their heirs will have the right to enjoy it according to the law in the future, thus completely resolving the case. For those living in the part of the house Ms. Tien sold, the obligation to provide their names is Ms. Tien's. The first instance court's request for Mr. Hung to provide the names of these people was not the right one. The Court of First Instance said that Mr. Hung's failure to provide the names and addresses of Mr. Duong's children, Ms. Thao, who bought Ms. Oanh's house, to suspend the case was incorrect. The Court of Appeal should have annulled the first instance decision and reassigned the matter, but it is incorrect to uphold the first instance decision.”

6

Precedent 07/2016/AL on civil case of dispute over home ownership and use rights

The house purchase contract was established in writing before July 1, 1991, with the signature of the seller, stating that the seller had received the full payment. Although the buyer has not signed the contract, they have been the custodian of the contract and have managed and stably used the house for a long time without any dispute or demand for payment from the seller.

“During the dispute, Mr. Song presented the two house sale documents mentioned above and Mr. Cao's paper authorizing Mr. Thanh to sell the house. In fact, the Chien family has been managing both rooms on the second floor of house 19 Thuoc Bac Street since 1972 until now. The Thanh family, interpreting at house 17 Thuoc Bac Street adjacent to it, has not disputed or demanded rent or house purchase payment. The content of "Sale of the second floor of House 19 Thuoc Bac Street" clearly states that the seller has received full payment and there is no agreement between the parties to issue a separate payment receipt. This serves as a receipt that the seller confirms the buyer has made the payment. Although the buyer has not signed the sales document, as the custodian of the document, it still holds value in determining the seller's obligation to have received the payment. The court of first instance and appellate court considered that the buyer did not sign the sales document and failed to prove the payment, thus denying the accuser's request to recognize the house purchase contract as it did not ensure the accuser's rights.

7

Precedent 14/2017/AL on the case requesting cancellation of land use rights transfer contract

- Precedent situation:

The contract for donating land use rights does not state the donation conditions, but other related documents show that the parties have agreed on the donation conditions and that the donation conditions are legal.

- Legal solution:

In this case, the Court must recognize the conditions of the land use rights donation contract and determine that the land use rights donation contract is a conditional asset donation contract.

“[10] Thus, if there is evidence to determine that the local competent State agency has granted land to Mr. Quang Van P1 since 2003 (because the Courts at all levels have not yet collected the land grant decision in 2003), Mr. Quang Van P1 has had the legal right to use the above land area since 2003, so Mr. Quang Van P1 has the right to dispose of his property.

[11] However, Mr. Quang Van P1 said that his gift to Mr. Quang Van P2 and his wife was conditional, that is, Mr. Quang Van P2 and his wife had to build a house for him to live in and take care of him and his father and mother, but Mr. Quang Van P2 and his wife did not fulfill their commitment. Although Mr. Quang Van P2 did not admit that Mr. Quang Van P1's gift was conditional, the authorization letter dated March 25, 2006 showed that Mr. Quang Van P1, who authorized Mr. Quang Van P2 to apply for a construction permit, was responsible for building a house on lot 379B for Mr. Quang Van P1 to live in, and is responsible for taking care of Mr. K and his wife (who are the father and mother of Mr. Quang Van P1). In the Commitment dated October 12, 2006, Mr. Quang Van P2 wrote: "...I was given the land by my father...I made this commitment with the local government to build a house for my father and not to transfer it to anyone."

[12] Although the contract for donating land use rights does not state the conditions, the above documents show that Mr. Quang Van P2 must build a house for Mr. Quang Van P1 to live in and take care of Mr. Quang Van P1 and Mr. Quang Van P1's parents.

8

Precedent 15/2017/AL on the case of land exchange contract dispute

- Precedent situation:

The litigants voluntarily agreed verbally with each other on the conversion of agricultural land use rights before October 15, 1993 (the effective date of the Land Law 1993); Registered and declared the changed land area and recorded it in the cadastral book; it has been directly cultivated and used stably, continuously, and long term.

- Legal solution:

In this case, the Court must recognize the oral agreement of the litigants on the conversion of agricultural land use rights to determine that the litigants have the right to use the changed land area.

“[1]... The exchange of land between the parties is on a voluntary basis, stemming from the needs of the parties for farming use. After the land exchange, both parties registered and declared it, which was recorded in the Land Register for the land exchange area. The land has been directly cultivated and stably used continuously from 1992 until now. During the land use process, Mr. Nguyen Minh T relocated the graves on the land and partially transformed it into a fish pond.

[2] In reality, the land exchange took place around February 1992. However, the evidence in the file shows that the parties carried out the registration and declaration procedures for the exchange land area with the local authorities in 1994. Other procedures, such as land Document transfer and tax declarations, have also been conducted since 1994. In this case, the land exchange should have been recognized as reality to recognize that the parties have the right to use the renewed land area properly and in accordance with reality. The Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal based on the testimony of Ms. Trinh Thi C to determine that the litigants temporarily exchanged land, thereby determining that the land exchange was illegal.
To cancel the land exchange transaction and force the parties to demolish their houses and return the land to each other is incorrect and causes unnecessary disturbance to the land use of the parties."

9

Precedent 16/2017/AL on civil cases of property inheritance disputes

- 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 solution:

In this case, the Court must recognize the land use rights transfer contract as legal, and the transferred land area is no longer part of the inheritance block but belongs to the party's right to use. receive transfer.

“[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, 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; Ms. Phung Thi G's children testified that Ms. Phung Thi G sold the land to take care of her and her children's lives. 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 the daughters of Mrs. Phung Thi G agreed to transfer the mentioned land area of 131 m2 to Mr. Phung Van K. The appellate court did not include the land area sold by Mrs. Phung Thi G to Mr. Phung Van K in the asset block for division, which is justified. The Court of First Instance determined that the inheritance was a total land area of 398m2 (including the land sold to Mr. Phung Van K) for division to be incorrect."

10

Precedent 21/2018/AL on fault and damage in unilateral termination of equipment lease agreement

:   A fixed-term property lease contract, with no agreement on contract termination conditions. The lessee terminates the contract ahead of time without the consent of the lessor.

The time between the lessee's written notice and the termination of the contract is so short that the lessor cannot have another replacement contract within the remaining term of the lease.

The lessor requires the lessee to pay property rental for the remaining term of the contract.

“[1] On April 10, 2006, Company D leased two steel locomotives to Joint Stock Company C and towed ships in and out at 10-10 port and Khe Day port, Quang Ninh, effective from the date of signing to December 31, 2006, according to Economic Contract 1141/HD-CNQN. In the contract, there is no agreement on contract termination conditions. However, on August 17, 2006, Joint Stock Company C issued Document 2349/INDEVCO announcing the termination of the contract on August 20, 2006, with the reason that "there is no need to rent two locomotives." The time taken by Joint Stock Company C to issue a written notice to terminate the contract was too short, causing damage to Company D due to not being able to get another replacement contract immediately. The fault belongs to Joint Stock Company C, so it must be responsible for the damage caused to Company D. The actual damage that needs to be considered is the vehicle rental fee for the remaining period of the contract."

11

Precedent 22/2018/AL on non-breach of obligation to disclose pre-existing medical conditions in life insurance policy

Life insurance contracts, insurance rules, and insurance applications have unclear requirements for declaring the insured's medical condition. The information required to be declared is not the basis for deciding whether the parties establish a life insurance contract.

“[4] At question 54 of the Insurance Application dated March 25, 2009, the question: For the item "gastrointestinal ulcers, gastrointestinal bleeding, pancreatitis, colitis, frequent indigestion, difficulty swallowing, or disorders in the stomach, intestines, liver, or gallbladder," Ms. H ticked the box In the consultation minutes 42/BV-99 of Hospital B dated September 3, 2009, Ms. H declared that she had a history of stomach pain for 2 years. According to the Minutes of Consultation, Ms. H had stomach pain since September 3, 2007, before the time Ms. H signed the Insurance Contract. Company C believes that the term stomach disorders includes all diseases related to the stomach, including stomach pain. However, at the appeals trial, the defendant could not provide any evidence to prove it, nor could it provide any scientific explanation to determine that stomach pain is a stomach disorder.

[8] Pursuant to the above legal provisions, in case the parties have different interpretations that are unclear and difficult to understand, this Article must be interpreted in favor of Ms. H. Thus, there is not enough basis to determine that stomach pain is included in stomach disorders as presented by Company C.

[9] In the insurance application, there was no question about stomach pain. Thus, Company C's claim that Ms. H had a stomach ache but did not declare it was intentionally dishonest and violated the obligation to provide information, which is unfounded.

[10] At question 61 of the Insurance Application dated March 25, 2009: “In the past 5 years, have you had diagnostic tests such as an X-ray, ultrasound, electrocardiogram, blood test, or biopsy? Or are you sick or sick with medical examination or treatment at the hospital but not mentioned in the above section? Mrs. H checked the box "no". At the appeal court, Company C provided a biochemical blood test form dated September 22, 2008, with the patient's name, Truong Thi H. Company C determined that this was a document collected by Company C in the periodic health check records for employees of Kindergarten C, where Ms. H previously worked. Company C believes that on September 22, 2008, Ms. H had a blood test but did not declare it in question number 61. In the insurance claim, Ms. H intentionally declared it untruthfully. Considering that, periodic health checks are carried out regularly by agencies and organizations. When participating in a periodic health check, the person being examined does not know and is not required to know what measures and methods the medical examination and treatment organization has implemented. Furthermore, during a routine health checkup, Ms. H did not detect any signs of any disease, leading to Company C refusing to sign a contract with Ms. H. Therefore, there was not enough basis to determine that Ms. H felt abnormal in her body before taking a blood test and then purchasing insurance from Company C.

[11] Therefore, there is not enough basis to determine that Ms. H acted fraudulently when signing the insurance contract. There is no basis to determine whether Ms. H's marking the "no" box in sections 54 and 61 of the Insurance Application directly affected the consideration of the Insurance Company to sign the insurance contract with Ms. H or not.

12

Precedent 23/2018/AL on validity of life insurance policy upon policyholder’s failure to pay insurance premiums due to insurer’s faults

The life insurance request file shows that the insurance buyer chooses the method of collecting insurance premiums at the insurance buyer's home address. When the insurance premium payment deadline comes and during the premium payment extension period, the insurance company's staff does not come to collect the premium from the insurance buyer.

“[4] Based on the life insurance claim file (notes 15–17), the address of P Life Insurance Company Limited to collect fees is at house number 231, hamlet 3, commune B, district G, Ben Tre province, Mr. L's house. This is also consistent with the testimony of Ms. N, who is an insurance sales and fee collection agent for P Life Insurance Company Limited.

[7] Considering that Mr. L signed an insurance contract in the form of a life insurance request with an insurance level of 300,000,000 VND, the fact that Mr. L has not paid the second round of fees as analyzed above is not Mr. L's fault. Therefore, Ms. T's appeal request forcing P Life Insurance Company Limited to pay the insurance money when Mr. L dies due to an accident is well-founded to accept.

[8] Considering the request of the representative of P Life Insurance Company Limited that Mr. L did not pay the second insurance premium by the deadline of August 24, 2005 and that Mr. Therefore, Mr. L's insurance contract has expired, which is unfounded. As analyzed above, the reason Mr. L did not pay the insurance premium was because the company staff did not come to collect the premium. This is also clearly shown on page 5 of the information customers need to know, clearly stating that collecting fees at home includes collecting fees quarterly, every 6 months, annually, or if the same address has 2 or more contracts, consistent with the case of Mr. L, who bought 03 contracts of P Life Insurance Company Limited belonging to Mr. L, Ms. Therefore, the Trial Council did not accept the request of the representative of P Life Insurance Company Limited, as well as the proposal of the lawyer to protect the legal rights and interests of P Life Insurance Company Limited.”

13

Precedent 24/2018/AL on inheritance converted into property under the legal ownership and use rights of individuals

Houses and lands are the common property of husband and wife, and one person dies first. The remaining person and the heirs of the deceased have agreed to divide the house and land. The division agreement does not violate the rights of any heir.

The division of houses and land has been done in reality and has been adjusted on land documents. Only after the other person dies does a dispute arise.

“[4]…Mr. in which Mrs. H, Mrs. H1, and Mrs. H2 are 44.4m2. The division has been carried out in reality and has been adjusted in land documents; The division agreement does not violate the rights of any heirs; no one disputes it, so there is a basis for determining the house. The land is no longer the inheritance of Mr. V and Mr. H but has been converted into legal land use rights for individuals. Therefore, Ms. H, Ms. H1, and Ms. H2 only have the right to sue to reclaim 44.4m2 of land under legal use rights that were divided in 1991; The property that was the inheritance of the parents no longer exists, so there is no basis to accept the request to divide the inheritance of Mr. H and Mr. V."

14

Precedent 25/2018/AL on not being subject to a deposit penalty due to objective reasons

A deposit contract to ensure the conclusion of a house purchase and sale contract has an agreement that within a certain period of time, the deposit recipient must complete the procedures to be granted a certificate of home ownership; If there is a violation, a fine must be imposed.

At the end of the agreed-upon term, the deposit recipient has not been granted a certificate of home ownership due to reasons beyond those of a competent state agency.

“[1]…In Article 5 of the deposit contract, it is stated that, within 30 days from the date of signing the contract, Ms. H must complete the procedures to be granted a certificate of ownership. For the house mentioned above, a notarized sales contract will then be signed; If she violates the above time limit, Ms. H will be fined an amount equivalent to the deposit of 2,000,000,000 VND. At the end of the above period, Ms. H did not comply with her commitment, so Mr. L sued to request that Ms. H return the deposit of 2,000,000,000 VND and fine the deposit of 2,000,000,000 VND.

[3]…at the time Mr. L deposited 2,000,000,000 VND to Ms. Truong Hong Ngoc H, Ms. H had received the house but had not yet completed the transfer procedures because the Ho Chi Minh City Civil Enforcement Agency was managing all documents related to the house.

[4]…If there are grounds to determine that the civil judgment enforcement agency is late in transferring ownership to Ms. H, the error leading to Ms. H's inability to fulfill her commitment to Mr. L is objective, and Ms.

15

Precedent 26/2018/AL on determining the time to start calculating the statute of limitations and the statute of limitations for requesting division of inheritance as real estate

The person leaving the inheritance as real estate died before the announcement of the Inheritance Ordinance on August 30, 1990. At the time of the first instance trial, Civil Code 91/2015/QH13 was in effect.

“[5] However, according to the provisions of Clause 1, Article 623 of the Civil Code 2015 (effective from January 1, 2017), the statute of limitations for an heir to request a division of the estate is 30 years for real estate, from the time of opening the inheritance.

[6] According to the provisions of Point d, Clause 1, Article 688 of the Civil Code 2015, for civil transactions established before the effective date of this Civil Code, the statute of limitations applies according to the provisions of this Code.

[7] Thus, from the effective date of the Civil Code 2015, the Court applies the provisions of Article 623 of the Civil Code 2015 to determine the statute of limitations for cases of opening inheritance before January 1, 2017. Pursuant to the provisions of Clause 4, Article 36 of the Inheritance Ordinance dated August 30, 1990, and the Civil Code 2015, in this case, the statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit to divide Mr. T's estate among the co-heirs still remains according to the regulations of the Law."