The content of Precedent No. 35/2020/AL in Vietnam

The content of Precedent No. 35/2020/AL in Vietnam (Image from the Internet)

According to Decision 50/QD-CA in 2020, Precedent 35/2020/AL regarding Vietnamese people before settling abroad returning agricultural land to domestic users has the following content:

Legal basis:

Decision on cassation No. 65/2018/GDT-DS dated August 6, 2018 of the High People's Court in Da Nang regarding the civil case "Dispute over property subject to enforcement of judgment" in Dak Lak province between the plaintiff, Mrs. Nguyen Thi K, and the defendant, Mrs. Nguyen Thi T; related rights and obligations of 9 individuals.

Location of the content of the Precedent:

Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the "Court's assessment".

Summary of the content of the Precedent:

- Case situation:

Vietnamese people before settling abroad have transferred agricultural land to domestic users; domestic users have been using the land stably, for a long time, and have been granted land use right certificates.

- Legal solution:

In this case, it is necessary to determine whether domestic users have legal land use rights, and the Court does not accept the request to reclaim land use rights.

Legal provisions related to the Precedent:

- Section 3 of Part III, Section 3 of Part V of Decision No. 201-HDCP/QD dated July 1, 1980 of the Government Council on the unified management of agricultural land and strengthening the management of agricultural land nationwide;

- Article 14 of the Land Law of 1987; Article 26 of the Land Law of 1993; Clause 11 of Article 38, Article 50 of the Land Law of 2003 (corresponding to point h, Clause 1 of Article 64; Article 100 of the Land Law of 2013).

Keywords of the Precedent:

"Vietnamese people settling abroad"; "Returning agricultural land to domestic users"; "Granted land use right certificates"; "Request to reclaim land use rights".

CASE CONTENT:

In the initial lawsuit filed on May 9, 2012, and the subsequent proceedings, the plaintiff, Mrs. Nguyen Thi K, stated: In 1978, Mrs. Nguyen Thi K and Mr. Nguyen C, her husband, wrote a document transferring 05 "sao" of land to Mr. Nguyen Van D (their son), with the following boundaries: East borders Mr. L, West borders Mrs. Nguyen Thi E, South borders a person named Thuong, North borders National Highway 14; however, in 1982 and 1983, Mr. D sold all the land to Mr. Nguyen Dang N and Mr. Nguyen Van B. After that, Mrs. K gave an additional 150m2 of adjacent land to Mr. D, without any written document, and in 2005, she gave Mr. D a house on the land (the house and land for Mr. D were determined to have the following boundaries: East borders Mr. B, West and South borders the remaining land of the family, North borders National Highway 14). In 2005, Mrs. K applied for a land use right certificate, so on March 9, 2006, the People's Committee of P city issued 02 land use right certificates: land use right certificate No. AD 516166, for plot No. 9, map sheet 58, with an area of 10,112.4m2, for annual crop cultivation, valid until 2013, for Mrs. Nguyen Thi K; land use right certificate No. AD 516165, for plot No. 9A, map sheet 58, with an area of 300m2, for urban residential use, for Mrs. Nguyen Thi K and Mr. Nguyen C. In November 2006, Mrs. K submitted a request for adjustment and reissuance of the land use right certificate to match the current situation of the house built on the land, so on November 24, 2006, the People's Committee of P city issued Decision No. 762/QD-UBND revoking the land use right certificates No. AD 516165 and AD 516166 and replacing them with new land use right certificates No. AG 680769 and AG 680768 for Mrs. Nguyen Thi K and Mr. Nguyen C. On June 19, 2009, the Chairman of the People's Committee of P city issued Decision No. 1654/QD-UBND revoking the land use right certificates previously granted to Mrs. Nguyen Thi K and Mr. Nguyen C, with the reason of overlapping area and duplicate plot numbers with the land use right certificates issued to Mr. Nguyen Van D.

K filed an administrative lawsuit against the Chairman of the People's Committee of P City regarding the issuance of Decision No. 1654/QD-UBND revoking the land use right certificate granted to the two individuals. The first-instance administrative judgment No. 02/2010/HC-ST dated June 11, 2010 of the People's Court of Buon Ma Thuot City did not accept K's request to initiate the lawsuit; The appellate administrative judgment No. 07/2010/HC-PT dated September 17, 2010 of the People's Court of Dak Lak Province amended the first-instance judgment, accepting K's request to initiate the lawsuit. The appellate administrative judgment was appealed by the Chief Prosecutor of the Supreme People's Procuracy, and in Decision No. 10/2011/HC-GDT dated November 15, 2011, the Administrative Court of the Supreme People's Court annulled the first-instance administrative judgment No. 02/2010/HC-ST dated June 11, 2010 of the People's Court of Buon Ma Thuot City and the appellate administrative judgment No. 07/2010/HC-PT dated September 17, 2010 of the People's Court of Dak Lak Province; and transferred the case file to the People's Court of Buon Ma Thuot City to handle the first-instance trial again. After taking over the case for the first-instance trial, the People's Court of Buon Ma Thuot City summoned K twice, but K was absent, so the People's Court of Buon Ma Thuot City suspended the case resolution.

Now K has filed a civil lawsuit demanding that Mr. and Mrs. D return the land because K believes that: In 2005, Mr. D used a photocopy of the land certificate from 1978, corrected the entire land plot and then used the photocopy as a document for applying for a land use right certificate, at the same time, Mr. D made a request for confirmation of the loss of the original documents, which was confirmed by the People's Committee of E Ward; Pursuant to these documents submitted by Mr. D, the People's Committee of City P granted a land use right certificate to Mr. D for an area of ​​4,925.5m2 (land use right certificate No. AD 579302 for plot No. 9A, map sheet No. 58, area of ​​300.5m2 and land use right certificate No. AD 579313 for plot No. 09, map sheet No. 58, area of ​​4,624m2). Now K has filed a lawsuit demanding that Mr. and Mrs. D return 4,652.7m2 of land (after deducting 272.8m2 of land revoked by the People's Committee of City P in Decision No. 4233/QD-UBND dated December 24, 2010); K agrees to allow Mr. and Mrs. D to continue using 183.74m2 of land (including 150m2 previously given and an additional 33.74m2 because a house has been built on this land); and requests the Court to cancel the land use right certificates issued by the People's Committee of City P to Mr. and Mrs. D, Mrs. T.

- Previously, Mr. Nguyen Van D (now deceased) and Mrs. Nguyen Thi T stated: In 1978, Mr. and Mrs. C, K wrote a paper granting Mr. and Mrs. D 05 sao of land, with the following boundaries: East bordering Mr. L, West bordering Mrs. Nguyen Thi E, South bordering Thuong, North bordering National Highway 14; but in 1982, K sold 01 sao of land to Mr. N and in 1985, C sold 4 sao of land to Mr. B, which was the entire area of ​​5 sao of land that the two had given to Mr. and Mrs. D in 1978, so the parents agreed to exchange and give Mr. and Mrs. D 5 contiguous sao of land; after that, the parents moved to the Federal Republic of Germany to settle.

Before settling in Germany, Mr. K sent all the house and land documents to Mrs. Nguyen Thi E. In 2004, Mr. K returned to his homeland. In 2005, Mr. D and Mrs. T, husband and wife, went to see Mrs. E to inquire about and retrieve the house and land documents. However, Mrs. E only handed over photocopies of the documents, while the original documents with the seal and confirmation from the authorities are currently held by Mr. K.

Mr. D and Mrs. T took the photocopies given by Mrs. E, made additional copies, and attached two decisions on granting land for coffee cultivation in 1980 and 1990 by the People's Committee of P town to the People's Committee of E ward to inquire about the procedures for obtaining land use right certificates. They were instructed that they needed the signatures of Mr. K and his siblings regarding the fact that in 1978, their parents gave them a house measuring 150m2 and 3.5 hectares of land for fruit tree cultivation, as stated in the original land documents. After that, Mr. D went back and informed Mr. K (at this time, Mr. C had passed away), and Mr. K signed a confirmation letter stating that in 1978, their parents did give them the house and the hectares of land for fruit tree cultivation. The confirmation letter also had the signatures of Mr. Nguyen Van D (now deceased) and Mrs. Nguyen Thi E. Pursuant to this confirmation letter, on December 26, 2005, the People's Committee of P city issued land use right certificates No. AD 579302 for plot 9A, map sheet 58, with an area of 300.5m2 for residential land, and land use right certificates No. AD 579313 for plot 09, map sheet 58, with an area of 4,624.9m2 for agricultural land.

However, on March 9, 2006, the People's Committee of P city also issued land use right certificates No. AD 516166 for plot 9, map sheet 58, with an area of 10,112.4m2 for annual crop cultivation by Mr. K, and land use right certificates No. AD 516165 for plot 9A, map sheet 58, with an area of 300m2 for urban land use by Mr. K and Mr. C, his deceased husband, on the area of land that was already granted to Mr. D and Mrs. T. However, after discovering this mistake, on November 24, 2006, the People's Committee of P city issued Decision No. 762/QD-UBND to revoke the land use right certificates granted to Mr. C and Mr. K.

Now, Mr. D and Mrs. T do not accept Mr. K's lawsuit request. They also state that the two plots of land have been mortgaged to Bank A for a loan of 3,000,000,000 VND. Since they were unable to repay the debt, the bank filed a lawsuit, which was resolved by the court, and the enforcement agency has completed the auction. Therefore, they request the court to resolve the case Pursuant to the provisions of the law.

The representative of the People's Committee of P city, who has rights and obligations related to the case, presents that the order and procedures for granting land use right certificates to Mr. D and Mrs. T are in accordance with the law.

The representative of Bank A, who has rights and obligations related to the case, presents that the mortgage loan agreement between the bank and Mr. D and Mrs. T was made willingly and registered for secured transactions in accordance with the law.

- In the first-instance civil judgment No. 124/2013/DS-ST dated September 6, 2013, the People's Court of Buon Ma Thuot city, Dak Lak province, rejected all the plaintiff's claims.

- In the appellate civil judgment No. 07/2014/DSPT dated January 14, 2014, the People's Court of Dak Lak province amended the first-instance judgment and accepted all the plaintiff's claims, ordering Mr. D and Mrs. T to return the land to Mr. K (except for 183.74m2 of land voluntarily given by Mr. K and the house built by Mr. D), and canceling the two land use right certificates issued by the People's Committee of P city to Mr. D and Mrs. T.

Mr. D and Mrs. T, Bank A, and Mr. H (the winning bidder in the land auction according to Decision No. 47/2011/QDST-KDTM dated June 17, 2011, of the People's Court of Dak Lak province, which resolved the dispute over the credit agreement and the mortgage agreement for land use between the bank and Mr. D) have submitted a request to the director of the court.

- In the cassation decision No. 343/2014/KN-DS dated September 16, 2014, the Chief Justice of the Supreme People's Court filed a cassation appeal according to the director's review procedure against the appellate civil judgment No. 07/2014/DSPT dated January 14, 2014, of the People's Court of Dak Lak province, requesting the trial by the director to annul the appellate judgment and the first-instance judgment, and transfer the case file to the court of first instance to resolve the case again. In the director's trial decision No. 461/2014/DS-GDT dated November 24, 2014, the Civil Court of the Supreme People's Court annulled the first-instance and appellate judgments and transferred the case file to the People's Court of Buon Ma Thuot city to resolve the case at first instance again with the following assessment (summary):

+ When C and K were born, they used 29,418.27m2 of land; in 1983, the two of them moved to Germany, so they handed over the land to their children. The couple D was given the right to use a part of the land, and at the end of 2005, they were granted a certificate of land use rights for 4,924m2 of land (including 300.5m2 of residential land and 4,624.9m2 of agricultural land). In 2004, K returned to the country; in 2006, K was granted a certificate of land use rights for the entire area of land that the couple D was using, but later, the Committee discovered the issue and issued a decision to cancel the certificate of land use rights granted to K and determined that the issuance of the certificate of land use rights to the couple D was in accordance with the law. Therefore, although the disputed land area originated from K and C, the two of them had already left the country and handed it over to the couple D for use since 1983, and the couple D was granted a certificate of land use rights in 2005; as for the 4,624.9m2 of agricultural land, if it was not handed over, it would have been reclaimed by the State; as for the 300.5m2 of residential land, K agreed to give 150m2 to D, and the remaining part is the inheritance of C, so K has no right to claim it back.

+ In addition, in 2009, the couple D mortgaged the land to borrow money from the bank; due to failure to repay the debt, the bank filed a lawsuit, and the Court resolved it. After the execution of the judgment, the Court issued a final judgment requiring the couple D to return the entire land (except for the 180m2 that D had built a house on), which is incorrect and does not guarantee the legal rights and interests of the bank and H (the person who won the land auction).

- In the civil judgment of first instance No. 98/2014/DS-ST dated January 14, 2014, the People's Court of Buon Ma Thuot City decided to reject all the claims of the plaintiff.

- In the civil judgment of appellate instance No. 06/2016/DS-PT dated January 11, 2016, the People's Court of Dak Lak Province decided to uphold the first-instance judgment mentioned above.

After the appellate trial, Nguyen Thi K filed a request for cassation according to the director's procedure against the civil judgment of appellate instance No. 06/2016/DS-PT dated January 11, 2016 of the People's Court of Dak Lak Province.

- In the cassation request No. 11/2017/KN-DS-VC2 dated February 7, 2017, the Chief Prosecutor of the Supreme People's Procuracy in Da Nang requested the High People's Court in Da Nang to review and annul the first-instance civil judgment No. 98/2014/DS-ST dated January 14, 2014 of the People's Court of Buon Ma Thuot City and the appellate civil judgment No. 06/2016/DS-PT dated January 11, 2016 of the People's Court of Dak Lak Province for retrial because:

+ The process of declaring and applying for a certificate of land use rights, Nguyen Van D used a photocopy and forged documents for the house and land on January 2, 1978 (after the land had been used for more than 5 years), and supplemented the confirmation of Nguyen Van S, Chairman of the Farmers' Union and Chairman of the People's Committee of E commune on November 25, 1983, which is against the law. The People's Committee of P city issued Certificate of Land Use Rights No. AD 579302 for plot 9A, map sheet 58, with an area of 300.5m2, and Certificate of Land Use Rights No. AD 579313 for plot 09, map sheet 58, with an area of 4,624.9m2 on December 26, 2005 to Nguyen Van D, which is incorrect. In addition, Nguyen Van S, Chairman of the Farmers' Union and Chairman of the People's Committee of E commune confirmed on November 25, 1983 in the document for the house and land dated January 2, 1978 mentioned above, but the first-instance and appellate courts did not verify and clarify the comprehensive aspects of the case Pursuant to the testimonies of these individuals.

+ The plaintiff claimed that in 1982, Nguyen Thi K sold 01 plot of land to Nguyen Dang N in the part of the land that C and K had given to her and her husband, and the remaining 04 plots was sold by C to Nguyen Van B in 1985. After C and K sold the land, they gave 05 plot adjacent to T and her husband. Regarding the area of land that C and K gave to T and her husband in 1978, it was not known who the adjacent land belonged to, so C and K left it blank, and after the sale, C and K gave another 05 plots adjacent to T and her husband, which is why T and her husband claimed that it was adjacent to B's land, the land of the house, and they requested confirmation from the Quoc Doanh Projection of the Provincial Cultural Center of Dak Lak Province and the Collective Farmers' Association of E commune.

However, according to the land sale documents, D directly sold the land to N and B. The land allocation Pursuant to the evidence provided by K, both the original copy and the photocopy, shows that the land already had boundaries, but the photocopy was modified to show the boundaries, not left blank. As for T's claim that after selling the 05 plots of land, C and K gave another 05 plot adjacent, there is no basis for this claim because there is no evidence to support it.

The plaintiff also claimed that K made a confirmation letter on October 15, 2005, confirming that in 1978, she gave T and her husband a house and some plot of land for planting fruit trees. K and her siblings, including Nguyen Van D (deceased in 2008) and Nguyen Thi E, all signed the confirmation letter to legitimize the house and land documents with the photocopy mentioned above. However, upon reviewing this request, it only shows that K confirmed the construction of a 100m2 house (5m x 20m) on a plot of land with an area of 150m2 (5m x 30m), and there is no content confirming the area of land for planting fruit trees for T and her husband.

Regarding the lawsuit: In 2005, Mr. D and Mrs. T, husband and wife, applied for a certificate of land use rights on a different area of land, not on the area of land granted by Mrs. K and Mr. C on January 2, 1978. Considering that Mr. Nguyen C passed away in 1998, at this time, the inheritance rights of Mrs. K and the 14 children of Mr. C and Mrs. K arise. The court of first instance and the appellate court did not allow these individuals to participate in the lawsuit as persons with rights and obligations related to the violation of Article 61 of the Land Law of 2004 (Article 73 of the Land Law of 2015).

At the trial session of the chief judge, the representative of the Supreme People's Procuracy in Da Nang requested the High People's Court in Da Nang to accept the appeal of the Chief Prosecutor of the Supreme People's Procuracy in Da Nang.

COURT'S OPINION:

[1] Regarding the right of Mr. and Mrs. K to claim back the area of 4,924m2 of land that Mr. D and Mrs. T were granted a certificate of land use rights by the People's Committee of P city on December 26, 2005, the High People's Court in Da Nang finds:

[2] Mr. and Mrs. C and Mrs. K have 14 children in common, Mr. Nguyen V D is one of the 14 children of Mr. and Mrs. C and Mrs. K. The disputed area of 4,924m2 of land (including 300.5m2 of residential land and 4,624.9m2 of agricultural land) is part of the total area of 29,418.27m2 of land that Mr. and Mrs. C and Mrs. K established during their lifetime (before 1975, this land belonged to the administrative boundary of commune C, after 1975 it belonged to the administrative boundary of commune H, in 1983 it belonged to the administrative boundary of commune E, and now it is in Ward E, P city, Dak Lak province). On October 2, 1978, Mr. and Mrs. C and Mrs. K issued a handwritten document for the house and land, stating that the house with an area of 4m x 12m, located on an area of 5 plots of land, bordered by Mr. L's land to the east, Mrs. E's land to the west, Mr. Thuong's land to the south, and National Highway 14 to the north, was given to their son, Mr. Nguyen V D. However, in 1982 and 1983, Mr. Nguyen D N and Mr. Nguyen V B received the transfer of the entire 5 plots of land. Considering Mrs. K's presentation that Mr. D is the one who transferred this 5 plots of land to Mr. N and Mr. B, while Mr. D does not acknowledge this and claims that Mr. and Mrs. C and Mrs. K are the ones who transferred it, the chief judge finds that Mr. D's presentation is consistent with the presentations of Mr. N and Mr. B that they bought 5 plots of land from Mr. and Mrs. C and Mrs. K and paid them (documents 231, 230, 229) and is consistent with the fact that in 1978, Mr. and Mrs. C and Mrs. K signed a handwritten document to give Mr. D the land, so legally, Mr. and Mrs. C and Mrs. K are still the registered land users.

[3] After selling the 5 plots of land and issuing the document to Mr. D in 1978, around 1983, Mr. and Mrs. C and Mrs. K emigrated to the Federal Republic of Germany; the remaining house and land were managed and used by Mr. D and Mrs. T. The trial council of the chief judge finds that the presentation of Mr. D and Mrs. T that before they settled in Germany, their parents gave them the adjacent 5 plots of land to compensate for the 5 plot of land that their parents sold to Mr. N and Mr. B is justified because it is consistent with the presentations of Mr. N and Mr. B that they bought the land and paid Mr. and Mrs. C and Mrs. K, and is consistent with Mrs. K's letter of presentation dated October 15, 2005 (The letter has the signatures of their children, including Mr. Nguyen V D, Mrs. Nguyen Thi E, and the testimony of the neighbor, Mr. Nguyen Van H1, and the authentication of the local authorities), confirming that in 1978, Mr. and Mrs. C and Mrs. K gave Mr. D the house and land, but the documents for the house and land were lost, so Mrs. K signed this letter for Mr. D to complete the procedures for registering the land use rights and the house according to the provisions of the law.

[4] On the other hand, out of the total area of ​​4,924m2 of land that Mr. D and Mrs. T were granted a land use right certificate by the People's Committee of p city on December 26, 2005, only 300.5m2 is residential land (land use right certificate number AD 579302, plot number 9A, map sheet 58), the remaining 4,624.9m2 of land, at plot 09, map sheet 58, is agricultural land (land use right certificate number AD 579313). According to the provisions of Clause 5, Article 14 of the Land Law 1987, Clause 3, Article 26 of the Land Law 1993, the State will revoke land if the land user does not use the land for more than 6 months or 12 months without permission from the State. According to the provisions of Clause 11, Article 38 of the Land Law 2003 and point h, Clause 1, Article 64 of the Land Law 2013, some cases of land use violations will be subject to land revocation by the State, such as: "Land for annual crops not used for a continuous period of 12 months, land for perennial crops not used for a continuous period of 18 months; Land for forestry not used for a continuous period of 24 months; ...", the directorate has considered that although previously, Mr. C and Mr. K used 4,624.9m2 of agricultural land; but the two elderly people have settled abroad and have not used the land for many years, so this agricultural land falls under the category of land to be revoked by the State; Mr. D and Mrs. T directly use, declare and pay taxes to the State every year and have been recognized by the State to be granted a land use right certificate in 2005, so they have the right to legally use this land area.

[5] Therefore, Pursuant to the above arguments, the directorate has found sufficient grounds to determine: Mr. C and Mr. K, before settling in the Federal Republic of Germany, gave Mr. D and Mrs. T 05 plots of land, which Mr. D has now been granted a land use right certificate to compensate for the 05 plots of land that the two elderly people gave him in 1978, but they sold to Mr. N and Mr. B in 1982, 1983; on the other hand, Mr. C and Mr. K did not use the land for many years, so the land falls under the category of land to be revoked by the State, while Mr. D and Mrs. T use, declare and pay taxes to the State and have been granted a land use right certificate, so they have the right to legally use this land area. Therefore, the first-instance civil judgment No. 98/2014/DS-ST dated January 14, 2014 of the People's Court of Buon Ma Thuot city and the appellate civil judgment No. 06/2016/DS-PT dated January 11, 2016 of the People's Court of Dak Lak province do not accept the request of Mr. K to demand that Mr. D and Mrs. T return the above-mentioned land area is Pursuant to sufficient grounds and in accordance with the law.

[6] After being granted a land use right certificate by the People's Committee of p city on December 26, 2005 (land use right certificate number AD 579302, for plot number 9A, map sheet 58, with an area of ​​300.5m2 of residential land and land use right certificate number AD 579313 for plot number 09, map sheet 58, with an area of ​​4,624.9m2 of agricultural land), in 2009, Mr. D and Mrs. T mortgaged at Bank A to borrow money. Due to Mr. D and Mrs. T's failure to repay the debt on time, the Bank filed a lawsuit; the People's Court of Dak Lak province resolved the matter in Decision No. 47/2011/QDST-KDTM dated June 17, 2011, with a decision to compel Mr. D and Mrs. T to repay the debt to the Bank, and if they fail to do so, the Bank has the right to auction off the rights to use the 2 plots of land that Mr. D had mortgaged. After that, the rights to use the above-mentioned 2 plots of land were auctioned off and sold to the Bank; the winning bidder at the auction was Mr. H, so according to the provisions of Article 138 and Article 258 of the Civil Code 2005, Mr. H is a third party who has the legal right to use the 2 plots of land without being involved in the dispute between Mr. K and Mr. D and Mrs. T.

[7] Pursuant to the above analysis, the Judicial Committee of the High People's Court in Da Nang has considered that the Objection of the Director of the Appellate Court No. 11/2017/KN-DS-VC2 dated February 7, 2017 of the Chief of the High People's Procuracy in Da Nang regarding the Appellate Civil Judgment No. 06/2016/DS-PT dated January 11, 2016 of the People's Court of Dak Lak province has no basis, so it is not accepted and the decision in the Appellate Civil Judgment No. 06/2016/DS-PT dated January 11, 2016 of the People's Court of Dak Lak province is upheld.

Pursuant to the above reasons,

DECISION:

Pursuant to point b clause 1 Article 337, clause 1 Article 343 of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code, decides:

1. Not to accept the Director's appeal No. 11/2017/KN-DS-VC2 dated 07-02-2017 of the Chief Prosecutor of the People's Procuracy at the high level in Da Nang; maintain the Civil Judgment No. 06/2016/DS-PT dated 11-01-2016 of the People's Court of Dak Lak province;

2. The Civil Judgment No. 06/2016/DS-PT dated 11-01-2016 of the People's Court of Dak Lak province continues to be legally effective.

The decision of the Chief Prosecutor is enforceable.

THE PRECEDENT CONTENT

On the other hand, in the total area of 4,924m2 of land that Mr. D and Mrs. T were granted a land use right certificate by the People's Committee of P city on December 26, 2005, only 300.5m2 is residential land (Land use right certificate No. AD 579302, plot No. 9A, map sheet 58) and the remaining 4,624.9m2 of land, at plot 09, map sheet 58 is agricultural land (Land use right certificate No. AD 579313). According to the provisions of clause 5 Article 14 of the 1987 Land Law, clause 3 Article 26 of the 1993 Land Law, the State will revoke land if the land user does not use the land for more than 6 months or 12 months without permission from the State. According to the provisions of clause 11 Article 38 of the 2003 Land Law and point h clause 1 Article 64 of the 2013 Land Law, some cases of land use violations will be subject to land revocation by the State such as: "Land for annual crops not used for 12 consecutive months, land for perennial crops not used for 18 consecutive months; Forest land not used for 24 consecutive months;...". The Chief Prosecutor considered that although previously, Mr. C, Mrs. K had used 4,624.9m2 of agricultural land; but the two individuals had settled abroad and not used the land for many years, so this agricultural land falls under the category subject to State revocation; Mr. D and Mrs. T directly used, declared annually, paid taxes to the State and were granted a land use right certificate in 2005, so they have the legal right to use this land area.

The first-instance Civil Judgment No. 98/2014/DS-ST dated 14-01-2014 of the People's Court of Buon Ma Thuot city and the appellate Civil Judgment No. 06/2016/DS-PT dated 11-01-2016 of the People's Court of Dak Lak province did not accept Mrs. K's request to demand Mr. D and Mrs. T's family to return the mentioned land area is justified, in accordance with the law.

The above is the content of Precedent No. 35/2020/AL regarding Vietnamese individuals before settling abroad handing over agricultural land for domestic use.

Additionally, you can refer to the list of 39 applicable precedents in Vietnam (Latest) here.

Best regards!