Vietnam: Case study on "dispute over determining ownership rights of a house, land use rights during the marriage period."

Content of the case

Mr. Le Van De and Mrs. Ho Thi Nhu L got married in 1988 and have two children, Mr. Le Van H (born in 1989) and Ms. Le Thi Phuong Tr (born in 1994). According to the plaintiff's account, in 2004, Mr. De's family built a house and acquired land at 89 Hoang Van T, in K city, K province, and constructed the house in 2011, 2012, and 2015. On April 20, 2015, the People's Committee of K city issued a Certificate of Land Use Rights, Ownership of Residential House, and other assets attached to the land, registered under the name of Ho Thi Nhu L, with a land area of 333.6m2, a construction area of 314.35m2, and a floor area of 1657.5m2.

Due to Mrs. L's debts to Mrs. Dinh Thi Kim T, Mrs. Vu Thi H, Mrs. N Thi Thanh H, Mrs. Truong Thi L, Mrs. Duong Thi Thu T, Mrs. Do Thi Tuyet N, Mrs. Nguyen Thi S, which were resolved through effective legal judgments and decisions, the Execution Department of Civil Judgments of K province issued Decision No. 68/QD-CCTHA on March 26, 2015, to seize the aforementioned property. Mr. Le Van De disagreed with this decision and filed a lawsuit, requesting the court to determine that the property is jointly owned by him, Mrs. L, and their children, Mr. Le Van H and Ms. Le Thi Phuong T, with a value of 18,000,000,000 VND (10 billion VND for the land and 8 billion VND for the house) and to determine their respective ownership and usage rights as follows: Mr. De - 30%, Mrs. L - 30%, Mr. H - 25%, Ms. T - 15%. At the same time, the court also determined that Mrs. T, Mrs. H, Mrs. H, Mrs. L, Mrs. T, Mrs. N, and Mrs. S were individuals with rights and obligations related to this case.

During the resolution process, Mrs. L, Mr. H, and Ms. T all agreed with Mr. De's lawsuit. According to Mr. Hung's testimony, from a young age, he received money from family members to purchase assets. In 2012, Mr. Hung, as the Chairman of the Board of Directors of a joint-stock company S, transferred an amount of 4,385,300,000 VND to his parents to build the house at 89 Hoang Van T. According to Ms. Trinh's testimony, from a young age, she also received money and gifts from family members to purchase assets and engage in business while still studying. The total amount Ms. Trinh contributed to building the house was 1,505,000,000 VND. However, the individuals with rights and obligations related to the case did not agree with the plaintiff's lawsuit because they believed that Mrs. L borrowed money from them to build the house at 89 Hoang Van T, so Mr. De and Mrs. L must sell the property to repay them.

Decision of the Court

The first-instance judgment on marriage and family case No. 07/2016/HNGD-ST dated January 27, 2016, of the People's Court of K city decided to accept Mr. Le Van De's lawsuit, recognize the land use rights at 89 Hoang Van T, K city, as joint property of Mr. Le Van De, Mrs. Ho Thi Nhu L, Mr. Le Van H, and Ms. Le Thi Phuong T. Mr. De and Mrs. L were each entitled to own and use 33.735%, Mr. Hung was entitled to own and use 24.17%, and Ms. Trinh was entitled to own and use 8.36% of the value of the property.

Within the legal deadline, the individuals with related rights and obligations, Mrs. T, Mrs. H, Mrs. H, Mrs. L, Mrs. T, Mrs. N, and Mrs. S, appealed the entire first-instance judgment, and the People's Procuracy of K province lodged a protest against the first-instance judgment.

The appellate judgment on marriage and family case No. 04/2016/HNGD-PT dated June 20, 2016, of the People's Court of K province decided to partially accept the appeal of the parties concerned, accept the protest of the People's Procuracy of K province, and recognize the land use rights at 89 Hoang Van T as joint property of Mr. Le Van De, Mrs. Ho Thi Nhu L; Mr. De and Mrs. L were each entitled to manage and use 50% of the property. The ownership rights of Mr. Le Van H and Ms. Le Thi Phuong T were not mentioned in the judgment.

Unsatisfied with the appellate judgment, Mr. Le Van De and Mrs. Ho Thi Nhu L filed a cassation appeal to the Supreme People's Court of Vietnam, requesting the court to review and overturn the appellate judgment.

Issues that need to draw on experience

There are still many contradictions in determining the property rights of Mr. Le Van H: Mr. Le Van H is the Chairman of the Board of Directors of S Marketing Joint Stock Company. In 2012, Mr. Hung transferred an amount of 4,385,300,000 VND to Mr. D. However, the Court did not require Mr. Hung to provide any documents related to the financial report of S Marketing Joint Stock Company in 2012 for comparison; it did not clarify how much of the total amount mentioned above Mr. Hung transferred to Mr. De for building a house, for business purposes, in order to provide a basis for resolving the case as not complying with the provisions of Article 97 of the Criminal Procedure Code on verification and collection of evidence. On the other hand, Mr. Hung stated that this amount of money was obtained from the favorable business results. However, in the "Request for Exemption from Court Fees", Mr. Hung stated: "I have just graduated, currently in the phase of studying and working, the salary and wages are only enough for daily expenses, so I don't have the ability to pay the court fees...". Thus, Mr. Hung's statement about his financial ability is contradictory, and the Court of first instance and the Court of appellate jurisdiction failed to clarify this contradiction.

Contradictions in determining the property rights of Ms. Le Thi Phuong T: Ms. T stated that the money contributed to building a house for her parents was given by relatives in the family, red envelope money, and additional business income while she was studying. According to the "Money Gift Documents," Ms. Trinh was given a total of 650,000,000 VND, but the amount she contributed to building the house was 1,505,000,000 VND. So where did the remaining money come from? Ms. Trinh believed that she had additional business income while she was a student, but considering that Ms. Trinh was born in 1994 and only became a student in 2011, how much profit did she make in such a short period of time, and is it reasonable for her to transfer money to Mr. De from November 2011? On the other hand, Ms. Trinh studied and worked in Ho Chi Minh City and transferred money to Mr. De from Ho Chi Minh City, but the transaction documents showed that Ms. Trinh directly deposited money at Saigon Thuong Tin Commercial Joint Stock Bank - K Branch. This contradiction was also not clarified by the Court of First Instance and the Court of appellate jurisdiction.

There are also many contradictions in the money gifts: In the money gift documents, on March 10, 2004, Mr. Ho Huu Cuong (uncle) gave Mr. Hung and Ms. Trinh 150,000,000 VND each; on October 15, 2004, Mr. Ho Huu Hung (grandfather) gave Mr. Hung and Ms. Trinh 200,000,000 VND each; on July 10, 2004 and November 1, 2004, Ms. Than Thi Buoi (grandmother) gave Mr. Hung and Ms. Trinh 100,000,000 VND each; on August 16, 2006, Mr. Ho Huu Hien (uncle) gave Mr. H and Ms. T 150,000,000 VND each; on October 7, 2007, Ms. Ho Thi Mai L (aunt) gave Mr. Hung and Ms. T 50,000,000 VND each. These people all have close relationships with each other, and no one witnessed the transactions. Mr. H, Ms. T, Mr. H's uncle, and aunt all stated that the money was given to express gratitude to Mrs. Lien for raising and providing financial support for education, but they gave a large amount of money to Mr. Hung and Ms. Trinh. On the other hand, the act of giving money should be documented, and the Court of first instance and the Court of appellate jurisdiction should verify and clarify the income and financial conditions of the givers to determine whether it is true that Mr. H and Ms. T were given such a large amount of money and request an appraisal of the "Money Gift Documents" to determine if they were written between 2003 - 2007 (or if they were written later to legitimize the source of the money). From there, the Court would have a basis to determine whether Mr. H and Ms. T contributed money to Mr. D and Mrs. L.

Although the issues mentioned above have not been clarified, the first-instance court has recognized the house and the land use rights at 89 Hoang Van Thu as the joint ownership of four individuals and determined the ownership ratio for each person. The appellate court's recognition of the house at 89 Hoang Van Thu as the joint ownership of four individuals and the determination of the ownership ratio for each person are not sufficiently solid grounds, showing signs of asset dispersal and seriously affecting the lawful rights and interests of the parties with related rights and obligations in the case.

Source: Supreme People's Procuracy

Please Login to be able to download