Vietnam: Contents of the 02 new precedents according to Decision 119A/QD-CA in 2024

Regarding this matter, LawNet would like to answer as follows: 

1. Announcement of 02 new precedents according to Decision 119A/QD-CA in Vietnam in 2024

On May 15, 2024, the Chief Justice of the Supreme People's Court issued Decision 119A/QD-CA regarding the announcement of new judicial precedents. In this decision, 02 new precedents were approved by the Council of Judges of the Supreme People's Court.

The 02 precedents approved by the Council of Judges of the Supreme People's Court are as follows:

- Precedent No. 71/2024/AL concerning the suspension of case resolution due to the fact that the issue has been resolved by a valid decision of a competent state authority and is not within the jurisdiction of the Court.

- Precedent No. 72/2024/AL regarding the determination of inheritance assets as the right to use land in cases where the will does not specify the specific land area.

According to the Chief Justice of the Supreme People's Court, all People's Courts and Military Courts have the responsibility to study and apply these precedents in trials starting on June 15, 2024.

Therefore, starting from June 15, 2024, there will be 2 new judicial precedents applied, bringing the total number of judicial precedents in Vietnam to 72.

2. Contents of the precedents issued under Decision 119A/QD-CA in Vietnam in 2024

The contents of the 02 judicial precedents issued under Decision 119A/QD-CA are as follows:

Precedent No. 71/2024/AL concerning the suspension of case resolution due to the fact that the issue has been resolved by a valid decision of a competent state authority and is not within the jurisdiction of the Court.

Case scenario of the precedent:

A land use dispute has been resolved by a valid decision of a competent state authority. The plaintiff continues to file a civil lawsuit regarding the disputed land use rights and requests the annulment of the valid decision of the competent state authority. The plaintiff's name is not listed on the disputed land use rights certificate.

Legal solution:

In this case, the Court must suspend the case resolution for the reason that the issue has been resolved by a valid decision of a competent state authority and is not within the jurisdiction of the Court.

Content of the precedent:

[3] On November 21, 2000, the People's Committee of N district issued Decision No. 1627/QD.CT.UBH, rejecting the complaint of Mr. T regarding the demand for the return of a land area of 2,152.15 square meters that Mr. T had transferred to Ms. C on December 8, 1987. Disagreeing with this decision, Mr. T continued to appeal to the Chairman of the Provincial People's Committee of D province. On December 19, 2001, the Chairman of the Provincial People's Committee of D province issued Decision No. 4835/QD.CT.UBT, stating that Decision No. 1627/QD.CT.UBH dated November 21, 2000 of the People's Committee of N district regarding the settlement of Mr. T and Ms. C's complaint is in accordance with the provisions of the law; rejecting Mr. T's complaint.

[4] Therefore, the land area disputed by Ms. H and Ms. C has been resolved in Decision No. 4835/QD.CT.UBT dated December 19, 2001 of the Chairman of the Provincial People's Committee of D province, which is enforceable.

[6] The People's Court of Dong Nai Province correctly suspended the case resolution according to the provisions at point c, clause 1 of Article 192, and point g, clause 1 of Article 217 of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code. The High People's Court in Ho Chi Minh City annulled Decision No. 55/2018/QDST-DS dated October 31, 2018 of the People's Court of Dong Nai province to suspend the civil case and transferred the case file to the People's Court of Dong Nai province to continue the case resolution according to the provisions of the law, as there was no basis for the suspension.

Precedent No. 72/2024/AL on determining inheritance assets as the right to use land in cases where the will does not specify the specific land area.

Case scenario of the precedent:

The inheritance asset, which is the right to use land, is determined by a valid will. The will contains specific details about the property but does not specify the exact land area, and there is no dispute regarding the property details.

Legal solution:

In this case, the Court must determine the inheritance asset as the right to use land based on the actual measured land area specified in the will.

Content of the precedent:

[4] According to the will dated May 16, 1998, Mr. M1 and Mrs. B1 granted Ms. G a land area of 15 "công" (a unit of measurement - equals 1296 m2). Although the will does not state the specific land area, it only mentions 15 "công," and it describes the details of the land area: Front facing Canal C, East (rear) adjacent to N, North adjacent to L, West adjacent to Q. Therefore, the portion of land granted to Ms. G by her parents is considered to be land with a specific area, surrounded by an industrial canal and land belonging to other households, with no disputes regarding the property details. After the death of Mr. M1, during the Family Meeting Minutes on June 15, 2004, and the will dated September 9, 2006, Mrs. B1 expressed the intention of granting Ms. G the entire area of 32,500 square meters of land. This is consistent with the fact that in 1998, Mr. M1 and Mrs. B1 made a will for Ms. G regarding the land within the designated area.

[5] The will dated May 16, 1998, made by Mr. M1 and Mrs. B1, bears the signatures of their children (including Mr. U) and is confirmed by the local authorities. The Family Meeting Minutes on June 15, 2004, bear the signatures of their children (excluding Mr. U) and are confirmed by the local authorities. The will dated September 9, 2006, is confirmed by the local authorities, reflecting the unanimous agreement of Mr. M1 and Mrs. B1's children at the time of making the will and the family meeting that none of them objected to the two elders granting the disputed land to Ms. G. They all confirmed that Ms. G lived with her parents since childhood, and it was agreed by her parents and siblings that she would manage the land for ancestral worship. However, Mr. U claimed that he was given the land by Mr. M1 and Mrs. B1 in 1998, so on November 15, 2000, he obtained a Certificate of Land Use Rights from the People's Committee of C district. However, Mr. U could not present evidence proving that he received the land as a gift from his parents.

...

[8] When resolving the case, both the court of first instance and the appellate court relied on the content of the will, the family meeting minutes, the testimonies of Mr. M1 and Mrs. B1's children, and the continuous management and use of the land by Ms. G since 1998, as well as the declaration and registration of the land. Based on these factors, the court accepted Ms. G's lawsuit and recognized her right to inherit the land as the inheritance asset of Mr. M1 and Mrs. B1.

Please Login to be able to download