Precedent No. 04/2016/AL in Vietnam

Case Law No. 04/2016/AL

Approved by the Council of Judges of the Supreme People's Court of Vietnam on April 06, 2016, and promulgated according to Decision No. 220/QD-CA dated April 06, 2016, by the Chief Justice of the Supreme People's Court of Vietnam.

Source of Case Law:

The appellate review decision No. 04/2010/QD-HDTP dated March 03, 2010, of the Council of Judges of the Supreme People's Court regarding the case "Dispute over the contract for the transfer of land use rights" in Hanoi between the plaintiff, Ms. Kieu Thi Ty, and Mr. Chu Van Tien, and the defendant, Mr. Le Van Ngu; related parties include Ms. Le Thi Quy, Ms. Tran Thi Phan, Mr. Le Van Tam, Ms. Le Thi Tuong, Mr. Le Duc Loi, Ms. Le Thi Duong, Mr. Le Manh Hai, and Ms. Le Thi Nham.

Summary of Case Content:

In the case where the house and land are marital property and only one spouse signs the contract to transfer the house and land to another person, while the other spouse does not sign the contract; if there is sufficient evidence to confirm that the transferor has received the full amount as agreed, the non-signing spouse is aware and jointly utilizes the transfer amount; the transferee has received, managed, and openly used the house and land; and the non-signing spouse is aware but does not object, it must be assumed that the non-signing spouse consents to the transfer of the house and land.

Relevant Legal Regulations to the Case Law:

- Clause 2 of Article 176 of the 1995 Civil Code;

- Article 15 of the 1986 Law on Marriage and Family.

Keywords of the Case Law:

“Dispute over the contract for the transfer of land use rights”; “Disposition of marital property”; “Establishment of ownership according to the agreement”.

---

CASE CONTENT

In the lawsuit petition dated November 05, 2007, and during the resolution process of the case, the plaintiff, Ms. Kieu Thi Ty, presented:

In 1996, her husband and she bought two Grade 4 houses on a residential land area of approximately 160m² from Mr. Le Van Ngu's family in Xuan La commune, Tu Liem district, Hanoi (now Group 11, Cluster 2, Xuan La ward, Tay Ho district, Hanoi). The sale was formalized in a contract, clearly stating the assets, houses on the land, and the boundaries of the parcel. Since her family did not have permanent residency in Hanoi, the local authorities did not acknowledge the sale between her family and Mr. Ngu's family. The purchase price was 110 taels of gold, which she had paid in full to Mr. Ngu's family, and in return, her family was handed over the house and land for management and use.

After the sale, as Mr. Ngu's family was building a new house, they borrowed her inside house for use and to store materials, while the land area adjoining Xuan La street was let out to her relative for school accommodation. Once Mr. Ngu's family completed their house construction, they returned the house and land to her. She dismantled the old house, raised the ground level, and built a new house to let her relatives stay; in 2001, she rented it out as a wood workshop, but later stopped renting it and left it unused.

In 2006 (after she registered her residency in Hanoi), during the process of applying for ownership and land use rights papers, Mr. Ngu's family caused difficulties, claiming she still owed over 3 taels of gold and that they only sold the inner house and land but retained the house and land adjoining Xuan La street. At the end of 2006, Mr. Ngu forcibly broke into the house and built a wall dividing the area under the eaves of the Grade 4 house adjoining Xuan La street (currently leased for a hairdressing shop). She requested the Court to enforce the contract and compel Mr. Ngu's family to return the house and land (the part facing Xuan La street).

The defendant, Mr. Le Van Ngu, presented:

In 1996, his family sold part of the house and land to Mr. Tien and Ms. Ty. They agreed to sell the house and land adjacent to Xuan La street, with a width of 7m and length covering the entirety of his family's land. They agreed to exclude 21m² facing the street earmarked by the government for road expansion, thus selling the Grade 4 house on a land area of 140m².

The purchase price was 6 taels of gold/m² for 42m² of street-facing land (25.2 taels) and 9 taels/m² for 98m² of inner land (88.2 taels). The total was 113.4 taels of gold, of which Mr. Tien and Ms. Ty paid 110 taels, leaving a debt of 3.4 taels.

His family handed over the house and land to Ms. Ty, except for 21m² facing the street, within the road expansion boundary, which his family continued to manage and use. Currently, as the government has revised the plan, the road is not expanding towards his family's house and land, so this area remains under his family's management and use, leaving no access to Mr. Tien's and Ms. Ty's purchased house and land.

Now, Ms. Ty claims the 21m² facing Xuan La street from him, which he does not accept. If Mr. Tien and Ms. Ty want to manage and use the street-facing land and access the inner house and land, they must return 2m of street width and the entire length of the land strip to his family and pay an additional 160 million VND.

Parties with related rights and obligations:

- Ms. Tran Thi Phan aligns with Mr. Ngu's testimony.

- Mr. Le Duc Loi, Mr. Le Van Tam, Mr. Le Manh Hai, Ms. Le Thi Duong, Ms. Le Thi Tuong, and Ms. Le Thi Nham align with Mr. Ngu's testimony.

---

In the first-instance civil judgment No. 27/2008/DS-ST dated April 25, 2008, the People's Court of Hanoi decided:

- To accept the claim for reclaiming 23.4m² of house and land at 39 Xuan La street from Mr. Le Van Ngu's family by Ms. Kieu Thi Ty and Mr. Chu Van Tien.

- To compel Mr. Le Van Ngu's family, Ms. Tran Thi Phan, Ms. Le Thi Quy (tenant), and Mr. Ngu's children to return the entire 23.4m² of house and land at 39, Xuan La street, Xuan La ward, Tay Ho district to Ms. Ty's family.- To compel Ms. Ty to pay Mr. Ngu's family 13,759,000 VND for construction and renovation values on the 23.4m²; Ms. Ty will own the construction materials and efforts on this area.

- Ms. Ty is permitted to create an access way to the inner house and block the rear pathway towards Mr. Ngu's family land.

- Mr. Ngu and Ms. Phan must cooperate with Ms. Ty to complete the transfer procedures for the sold house and land. If Mr. Ngu's family obstructs, Ms. Ty may independently initiate the transfer and registration for ownership and land use rights.

Additionally, the first-instance court ruled on court fees and the defendants' rights to appeal.

---

On May 08, 2008, Mr. Le Van Ngu and Ms. Tran Thi Phan appealed, requesting the appellate court annul the house and land transfer contract with Ms. Kieu Thi Ty and Mr. Chu Van Tien, citing that Mr. Ngu signed and received money alone without Ms. Phan's knowledge.

In Decision No. 02/QD-VKSNDTC-VPT1 dated May 28, 2008, the Procurator General of the Supreme People's Procuracy appealed for the appellate court to compel Mr. Ngu to dismantle illegal constructions on Ms. Ty's land, restoring the initial state. Ms. Ty should not compensate 13,759,000 VND to Mr. Ngu and reconsider the first-instance civil court fees for Mr. Ngu and Ms. Ty.

In the appellate civil judgment No. 162/2008/DS-PT dated September 04, 2008, the Appellate Court of the Supreme People's Court in Hanoi decided not to accept Mr. Le Van Ngu's and Ms. Tran Thi Phan's appeal, accepted the appeal Decision No. 02/QD-VKSNDTC-VPT1 dated May 28, 2008, by the Supreme People's Procuracy, and partially amended the first-instance judgment as follows:

- To accept the reclamation of 23.4m² of house and land at 39 Xuan La street from Mr. Le Van Ngu's family by Ms. Kieu Thi Ty and Mr. Chu Van Tien.

- To compel Mr. Ngu's family, including Mr. Le Duc Loi, Mr. Le Van Tam, Mr. Le Manh Hai, Ms. Le Thi Duong, Ms. Le Thi Tuong, Ms. Le Thi Nham, and Ms. Le Thi Quy (tenant of Mr. Ngu) to return the entire 23.4m² of house and land at 39 Xuan La street, Xuan La ward, Tay Ho district, Hanoi to Ms. Kieu Thi Ty and Mr. Chu Van Tien.

- To hold Mr. Le Van Ngu and Ms. Tran Thi Phan responsible for their own 13,759,000 VND construction and renovation costs and to dismantle constructions on the 23.4m² area, restoring it to its original state for Ms. Ty and Mr. Tien; dismantling costs will be borne by Mr. Ngu and Ms. Phan.

- Ms. Ty is allowed to independently create access to the inner house and to block the rear path toward Mr. Ngu's family land.

- Mr. Ngu and Ms. Phan must cooperate with Ms. Ty to complete the transfer procedures for the sold house and land to Ms. Ty and Mr. Tien. If Mr. Ngu's family obstructs, Ms. Ty may independently initiate the transfer and registration for ownership and land use rights.

Furthermore, the appellate court ruled on related court fees.

---

After the appellate trial, complaints dated October 21, 2008, and October 22, 2008, from Mr. Ngu and Ms. Phan, stated that the house and land at 39 Xuan La street are family assets; Mr. Ngu independently sold them to Ms. Ty without Ms. Phan's consent, requesting the contract be declared void.

In Decision No. 63/QD-KNGDT-V5 dated May 14, 2009, the Procurator General of the Supreme People's Procuracy appealed, proposing the Council of Judges of the Supreme People's Court review the appellate judgment above and annul the first-instance civil judgment No. 27/2008/DS-ST dated April 25, 2008, by the People's Court of Hanoi; transfer the case files back to the People's Court of Hanoi for a new trial. The reasoning is:

In 1996, Mr. Chu Van Tien and Ms. Kieu Thi Ty bought two Grade 4 houses on residential land adjacent to Xuan La street, spanning 7m wide and covering the entire plot of Mr. Le Van Ngu's family land in Xuan La commune, Tu Liem district (now Xuan La ward, Tay Ho district). The parties executed a handwritten sales contract for house and land transfer but did not follow legal procedures thereafter. After purchase, Ms. Ty dismantled both houses to rebuild, raised the ground level, constructed new foundations, walls, and roof tiles as currently. By late 2005, when Ms. Ty processed ownership papers, Mr. Ngu's family disputed, claiming 3.4 taels of gold debt and that only the inner house land was sold, retaining the street-facing house land.

In late 2006, disputes and altercations occurred over the 21m² street-facing house land area on Xuan La street, Tay Ho district.

On October 29, 2007, Ms. Kieu Thi Ty and Mr. Chu Van Tien filed a lawsuit demanding house and land ownership through the sales contract established on April 26, 1996, between Mr. Le Van Ngu, Ms. Tran Thi Phan, and them. However, the sales contract did not comply with legal requirements in formalities and substance; Mr. Ngu's family contended that Mr. Tien and Ms. Ty owed 3.4 taels of gold and did not sell the street-facing land, thus refused to process ownership transfers. Currently, the entire house and land areas per the sales contract remain under Mr. Ngu's family's name.

Both first-instance and appellate courts identified the legal dispute in this case as "Disputes over house and land ownership" and applied Articles 255 and 256 of the Civil Code, granting Ms. Ty and Mr. Tien's claim to reclaim the house and land from Mr. Ngu’s family. This recognition inherently validated house and land ownership for Ms. Ty and Mr. Tien before the disputed sales contract could be processed for ownership transfer and registration. Thus, both judgments need annulment, and the case requires retrial for proper legal relationship identification, ensuring parties' rights and state interests.

During the appellate review, the Supreme People's Procuracy representative recommended the Council of Judges of the Supreme People's Court accept the Procurator General’s appeal.The Judicial Council of the Supreme People's Court holds:

Based on the lawsuit dated November 5, 2007 and the statements of Mrs. Ty and Mr. Tien during the process of resolving the case, Mr. Ty and Mr. Tien requested Mr. Ngu and Mrs. Phan to return all the houses and land that they had transferred to Mr. Ngu and Mrs. Phan, which Mr. Ngu and his wife are currently occupying. They also requested Mr. Ngu and Mrs. Phan to remove the illegal constructions on the above-mentioned land. Thus, the plaintiffs have requested the return of ownership rights to the house and land that Mr. Ngu and Mrs. Phan transferred according to the house and land transfer contract dated April 26, 1996. Meanwhile, Mr. Ngu and Mrs. Phan argue that the disputed land still belongs to them, as they have not transferred it to Mrs. Ty and Mr. Tien. Therefore, it is possible to determine that the parties are disputing property ownership rights and the house and land transfer contract, but the primary court and appellate court only identified the legal relationship to be resolved as a dispute over house and land ownership rights, which is incomplete. However, in practice, the primary court and the appellate court have considered and resolved these two disputed relationships. Therefore, the Protest No. 63/QD-KNGDT-V5 dated May 14, 2009, of the Chief Procurator of the Supreme People's Procuracy, which argued that the primary court and appellate court misidentified the legal relationship in dispute and should annul both judgments for retrial at the primary level, is incorrect and unnecessary.

Regarding the house and land sale contract dated April 26, 1996: The house and land transfer took place from 1996, after purchasing the house and land, Mr. Tien and Mrs. Ty paid in full, received the house and land, elevated the land, repaired the house, and moved their children in. Meanwhile, Mr. Ngu's family remained on the remaining land adjacent to Mr. Tien and Mrs. Ty's house. According to the statements of Mr. Ngu and Mrs. Phan's children, after selling the house and land to Mr. Ty's family, Mr. Ngu and Mrs. Phan distributed gold to their children. Furthermore, after the transfer and handover of the house and land to Mr. Tien and Mrs. Ty, on April 26, 1996, Mr. Ngu wrote a "commitment letter" to borrow back the house and land portion that had been transferred to stay while rebuilding the house on the remaining land. Indeed, Mr. Ngu and Mrs. Phan have used Mr. Ty and Mr. Tien's house and land when building their house. Thus, it can be determined that Mrs. Phan was aware of the house and land transfer between Mr. Ngu and Mr. Tien and Mrs. Ty and agreed, participating in the process, so her complaint that she was unaware of the transfer is unfounded.

During the case resolution process, Mr. Ngu and Mrs. Phan also claimed that the purchase price of the house and land was 113.4 taels of gold. However, they could not provide any documentation to prove this. According to the house and land sale contract dated April 26, 1996, the agreed amount was 110 taels of gold, and in the payment document dated May 9, 2000, Mr. Ngu signed confirming "I have received the full remaining amount from selling the house and land to Mr. Tien and Mrs. Ty...". The note section added that the total amount of gold received previously and currently was 110 taels. Thus, there is enough basis to assert that the house and land sale price was 110 taels of gold and Mr. Ngu and Mrs. Phan had received the full amount.

Although the house and land sale contract did not specify the exact transferred land area, both parties clearly agreed on the boundaries: "The width of the land is 7 meters from the edge of the wall separating Mr. Tay's house; to the northeast bordering Xuan La - Xuan Dinh road; to the southeast bordering Mr. Le Van Tay's land; to the southwest bordering Mrs. Le Thi Soat and Mr. Vinh's land; to the northwest bordering the remaining land of Mr. Ngu's family. The land's length from Xuan La - Xuan Dinh road to the end of the land plot...".

Additionally, the parties agreed that if the government uses the front land for road construction, Mr. Tien would be entitled to all compensation policies from the government. Thus, the parcel of land that the parties agreed to transfer extends from the edge of Xuan La - Xuan Dinh road to the end of the land plot, including the disputed area.

Therefore, the courts determined that the 23.4m2 area adjacent to Xuan La - Xuan Dinh road is within the land area that Mr. Ngu agreed to transfer to Mr. Ty's family, and that Mr. Ty's family had paid the full 110 taels of gold according to the contract and received the house and land. Thus, it is justified to require Mr. Ngu's family to return the entire 23.4m2 house and land area at 39 Xuan La Street, Xuan La Ward, Tay Ho District, Hanoi City, to Mr. Kieu Thi Ty and Mr. Chu Van Tien.

For the reasons above, based on Clause 3 of Article 291, Clause 1 of Article 297 of the Civil Procedure Code,

DECISION

To dismiss Protest No. 63/QD-KNGDT-V5 dated May 14, 2009, of the Chief Procurator of the Supreme People's Procuracy; uphold the Appellate Judgment No. 162/2008/DS-PT dated September 4, 2008, of the Appellate Court of the Supreme People's Court in Hanoi.

CASE LAW CONTENT

"Regarding the house and land sale contract dated April 26, 1996: The house and land transfer took place from 1996, after purchasing the house and land, Mr. Tien and Mrs. Ty paid in full, received the house and land, elevated the land, repaired the house, and moved their children in. Meanwhile, Mr. Ngu's family remained on the remaining land adjacent to Mr. Tien and Mrs. Ty's house. According to the statements of Mr. Ngu and Mrs. Phan's children, after selling the house and land to Mr. Ty's family, Mr. Ngu and Mrs. Phan distributed gold to their children. Furthermore, after the transfer and handover of the house and land to Mr. Tien and Mrs. Ty, on April 26, 1996, Mr. Ngu wrote a "commitment letter" to borrow back the house and land portion that had been transferred to stay while rebuilding the house on the remaining land. Indeed, Mr. Ngu and Mrs. Phan have used Mr. Ty and Mr. Tien's house and land when building their house. Thus, it can be determined that Mrs. Phan was aware of the house and land transfer between Mr. Ngu and Mr. Tien and Mrs. Ty and agreed, participating in the process, so her complaint that she was unaware of the transfer is unfounded.”

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

1. Case Law No. 01/2016/AL on "Murder"

2. Case Law No. 02/2016/AL on "Dispute over claim of property"

3. Case Law No. 03/2016/AL on "Divorce"

4. Case Law No. 04/2016/AL on "Dispute over land use rights transfer contract"

5. Case Law No. 05/2016/AL on "Inheritance dispute"

6. Case Law No. 06/2016/AL on "Inheritance dispute"

>> CLICK HERE TO READ THIS ARTICLE IN VIETNAMESE