The case "Inheritance Dispute" is published according to Decision 220/QD-CA dated April 6, 2016, by the Chief Justice of the Supreme People's Court of Vietnam.
Article table of contents
Precedent No. 06/2016/AL
Approved by the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court of Vietnam on April 6, 2016, and published pursuant to Decision No. 220/QD-CA on April 6, 2016, by the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court of Vietnam.
Source of Precedent:
Decision on Cassation No. 100/2013/GDT-DS dated August 12, 2013, by the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court in the inheritance dispute case in Hanoi, between the plaintiff Mr. Vu Dinh Hung and the defendants Mrs. Vu Thi Tien (alias Hien), Mrs. Vu Thi Hau; and related parties including Mr. Vu Dinh Duong, Mrs. Vu Thi Cam, Mrs. Vu Thi Thao, Mrs. Nguyen Thi Kim Oanh, and Mrs. Ha Thuy Linh.
Summary of the Precedent's Content:
In an inheritance dispute case involving heirs residing abroad, if the Court has already carried out judicial entrustment, collected evidence in conformance with the law but still could not determine the addresses of those heirs, the Court will still address the plaintiff's request; if the inheritance property is identified along with the class of heirs and the decedent left no will, the Court will divide the inheritance according to the law for the plaintiff; the inheritance portions of the absent heirs whose addresses could not be determined will be temporarily managed by the heirs residing domestically to later hand over to the absent heirs.
Legal Provisions Related to the Precedent:
- Article 93; Point e, Clause 1, Article 168 of the Civil Procedure Code 2004;- Articles 676 and 685 of the Civil Code 2005.
Keywords of the Precedent:
“Inheritance dispute”; “Heirs residing abroad with unknown addresses”; “Judicial entrustment”; “Division of inheritance”; “Management of inheritance”.
CASE CONTENT
In the lawsuit filed in July 1993, the plaintiff Mr. Vu Dinh Hung stated:
His parents, Mr. Vu Dinh Quang and Mrs. Nguyen Thi Thenh, had six children: Mr. Vu Dinh Duong, Mrs. Vu Thi Cam, Mrs. Vu Thi Thao, Mr. Vu Thi Tien (alias Hien), and Mrs. Vu Thi Hau. Mr. Quang and Mrs. Thenh established the house at 66 Dong Xuan Street, Hoan Kiem District, Hanoi, with an area of 123m². In 1979, Mr. Quang passed away without leaving a will, the house was cohabited by Mrs. Thenh and three of their children: Mr. Thi Tien, Mrs. Hau, Mr. Duong, Mrs. Cam, and Mrs. Thao had already emigrated abroad. In a family meeting record dated October 28, 1982, Mrs. Thenh, Mr. Thi Tien, and Mrs. Hau temporarily agreed to divide the house into three parts for usage among Mr. Thi Tien, Mrs. Hau, and Mr. Hung. In 1987, Mrs. Thenh passed away. Subsequently, in 1989, Mr. Thi Tien clandestinely sold his share of the house to Mrs. Nguyen Thi Kim Oanh. Despite his filing for inheritance division in Court, on October 31, 1993, Mrs. Hau went on to sell her temporary share of the house to Mrs. Ha Thuy Linh. This transaction was wrongful. He confirmed that his three siblings abroad (Mr. Duong, Mrs. Cam, and Mrs. Thao) had documents allowing him to inherit their portions and therefore requested the legal division of his parents’ estate.
Mr. Hung submitted photocopies of the authorization documents dated March 3, 1992, from Mr. Vu Dinh Duong and on May 1, 1993, from Mrs. Vu Thi Cam, and on October 28, 1991, from Mrs. Vu Thi Thao, all of which authorized him to manage the respective portions of their properties in the house at 66 Dong Xuan, each equal to 1/6 of the house. After filing the lawsuit, Mr. Hung submitted further “Inheritance Transfer” documents dated April 25, 1995, from Mr. Vu Dinh Duong; an “Inheritance Transfer” dated May 10, 1995, from Mrs. Vu Thi Cam; an “Inheritance Transfer” from Mrs. Vu Thi Thao; these documents, all allegedly signed abroad, confirmed: the house at 66 Dong Xuan was left to their six children by their parents, but Mr. Thi Tien (alias Hien) and Mrs. Hau violated their mother’s will (that the house should not be sold or rented to strangers) by selling parts of the house. Mr. Duong, Mrs. Thao, and Mrs. Cam all gave their 1/6 share of the house at 66 Dong Xuan to Mr. Hung, so he could maintain the ancestor worship and also accommodate the families of their siblings living abroad to visit for worship purposes, as well as requesting that Mr. Hung inherit the house physically (the submitted documents were all photocopies).
The defendant stated:
Mrs. Vu Thi Tien confirmed the familial relationship and the origin of the house at 66 Dong Xuan as presented by Mr. Hung. In 1989, she sold her portion of the house to Mrs. Oanh, handed over the house, and completed the sale procedures at the Hanoi Housing Department for the buyer. After moving in, Mrs. Oanh also agreed with Mr. Hung and Mrs. Hau to swap certain facilities in the house for more convenient usage. However, after Mr. Hung filed a complaint, the Housing Department revoked the house sale documents between her and Mrs. Oanh. Mrs. Hau also sold her temporary share of the house to someone else. She confirmed that Mrs. Thenh had given money to the three siblings residing abroad, hence they had no claims about this house. She sold her share of the house to Mrs. Oanh and now has no responsibility for the sold portion.
Mrs. Vu Thi Hau corroborated the familial relationship and the origin of the house at 66 Dong Xuan as presented by Mr. Hung and the house division and subsequent sale as narrated by Mrs. Tien. She affirmed that she had informed her siblings abroad about the sale, and they all agreed. She requested to keep the share of the house she sold to Mrs. Linh and Mr. Khoi.
The related parties stated:
Mr. and Mrs. Ha Thuy Linh and Mr. Hoang Manh Khoi stated: When they bought the house, Mrs. Hau had shown them the family meeting record, which reassured them to buy. They paid in full, moved in, and have been living there since then, requesting the legalization of the house purchase from Mrs. Hau.
Mrs. Nguyen Thi Kim Oanh stated: On October 18, 1992, she purchased the house portion from Mrs. Tien for 30,000,000 VND. The transaction was authorized by the authorities. After purchasing, she resided and made agreements to swap parts of the house for usage with Mr. Hung; she requested the validation of the house sale contract between her and Mrs. Tien.
In the primary civil judgment No. 20/DSST on May 23, 1995, the Hanoi People's Court accepted Mr. Hung’s request for inheritance division, representing Mr. Duong, Mrs. Cam, and Mrs. Thao, and divided the estate of Mr. Quang and Mrs. Thenh. It partially acknowledged Mrs. Thenh’s will made on October 28, 1982, valuing the estate at 1,228,151,520 VND, and divided the inheritance by the physical property of the house and land among three people: Mr. Hung, Mrs. Hau, and Mrs. Tien. The transactions between Mrs. Tien and Mrs. Hau with Mrs. Oanh and Mrs. Linh were executed per state regulations.
Mrs. Tien appealed, requesting a review of the inheritance property area calculation. Mr. Hung appealed, claiming the court's handling was biased.
In the appellate civil judgment No. 115 on October 10, 1995, the appellate court of the Supreme People’s Court in Hanoi annulled the primary judgment, remanding the case to the Hanoi People's Court for retrial.
In the primary civil judgment No. 50/DSST on September 11, 1996, the Hanoi People’s Court decided to accept the request for inheritance division by Mr. Hung, Mr. Duong, Mrs. Cam, and Mrs. Thao represented by Mr. Hung for the estate of Mr. Quang and Mrs. Thenh; voluntarily noted that Mr. Duong, Mrs. Cam, and Mrs. Thao abroad gave up their inheritance portions to Mr. Hung. The court divided the physical portions of the house and land to Mr. Hung, Mrs. Hau, and Mrs. Tien (each receiving 1/3 of the storefront and the back part of the house); Mrs. Hau and Mrs. Tien had to compensate Mr. Hung (Mrs. Hau 156,824,381 VND; Mrs. Tien 140,774,106 VND). The house sales between Mrs. Tien, Mrs. Hau with Mrs. Oanh, Mrs. Linh, were unlawful.
Mr. Hung appealed.
In Decision No. 82/TDC dated July 15, 1997, the appellate court of the Supreme People’s Court in Hanoi temporarily suspended the case resolution.
After Resolution No. 1037/2006/NQ-UBTVQH11 dated July 27, 2006, by the Standing Committee of the National Assembly regarding civil transactions of housing established before July 1, 1991, involving overseas Vietnamese, the appellate court of the Supreme People’s Court in Hanoi resumed the case.
In the appellate civil judgment No. 142/2007/DSPT on July 3, 2007, the appellate court of the Supreme People’s Court in Hanoi annulled the primary judgment and remanded the case to the Hanoi People’s Court for retrial, noting: The lawsuit petition was solely written and signed by Mr. Hung; the authorization documents from Mr. Duong, Mrs. Thao, and Mrs. Cam did not authorize lawsuit filing for inheritance division (except for Mrs. Thao’s document); now the litigants acknowledged that Mr. Duong and Mrs. Thao had died, thus requiring verification and involving their heirs in proceedings; reevaluating the house and land values suitably.
Upon retrial, litigants declared Mr. Duong and Mrs. Thao had died around 2002. The primary court requested Mr. Hung to provide death certificates for Mr. Duong and Mrs. Thao, supplement the lawsuit petition as per conformable at Clause 2, Article 164 of the Civil Procedure Code (names, addresses, and nationalities of Mr. Duong and Mrs. Thao's heirs; names and addresses of people residing on the disputed house land), but Mr. Hung could not provide them.
In Decision No. 04/2008/QDST-DS on January 17, 2008, the Hanoi People's Court suspended the case resolution and refunded Mr. Hung's court fee advance respectively.
On January 29, 2008, Mr. Hung appealed, stating that the Court’s suspension of case resolution was incorrect.
In Decision No. 168/2008/DS-QDPT on September 4, 2008, the appellate court of the Supreme People’s Court in Hanoi accepted Mr. Hung’s appeal, annulled the primary decision, stating: the primary court's application of Clause 2 Article 192 to suspend case resolution was incorrect, depriving the litigant's right to sue.
After resuming the case resolution, the Hanoi People's Court requested Mr. Hung to provide the names, ages, addresses of Mr. Duong's and Mrs. Thao's heirs; authorization or inheritance waiver documents from these heirs; names and addresses of people residing on Mrs. Oanh's sold house land. Mr. Hung could not provide these documents.
In Decision No. 54/DS-ST on September 30, 2009, the Hanoi People's Court decided: Suspended the case resolution for inheritance division, returned the lawsuit petition and accompanying evidence documents to Mr. Hung.
Mr. Hung appealed.
In Decision No. 44/2010/QD-PT on March 9, 2010, the appellate court of the Supreme People’s Court in Hanoi upheld the primary decision.
Mr. Hung filed for cassation review.
In Decision No. 35/2013/KN-DS on January 22, 2013, the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court protested against Decision No. 44/2010/QD-PT on March 9, 2010, by the appellate court of the Supreme People’s Court in Hanoi. The protest proposed that the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court review the cassation, annul the above-mentioned appellate civil judgment and the primary court’s Decision on suspension No. 54/2009/DS-ST on September 30, 2009, by the Hanoi People’s Court; remand the case file to the Hanoi People’s Court for retrial as per the law.
At the cassation hearing, the representative of the Supreme People's Procuracy concurred with the protest of the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court.
The Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court concludes:
The house No. 66 Dong Xuan Street, Hoan Kiem District, Hanoi, was established by Mr. Vu Dinh Quang (deceased in 1979) and Mrs. Nguyen Thi Thenh (deceased in 1987). They had six children: Mr. Vu Dinh Duong, Mrs. Vu Thi Cam, Mrs. Vu Thi Thao, who emigrated abroad in 1979, and Mr. Vu Dinh Hung, Mrs. Vu Thi Tien (alias Hien), Mrs. Vu Thi Hau residing in Vietnam. After Mr. Quang died, Mrs. Thenh, Mr. Hung, Mrs. Tien, and Mrs. Hau managed the house. After Mrs. Thenh died, Mr. Hung, Mrs. Tien, and Mrs. Hau self-divided the house into three parts for residence. On October 18, 1992, Mrs. Tien sold her share to Mrs. Nguyen Thi Kim Oanh, and on October 31, 1993, Mrs. Hau sold her share to Mrs. Ha Thuy Linh.
In 1993, Mr. Hung filed for the legal division of the inherited house and land left by their parents. The case resolution dragged from 1993 to 1996, and was temporarily suspended at the appellate stage in 1997. The case resumed in 2007.
During the early litigation stage (pre-1997 suspension), Mr. Hung provided powers of attorney dated 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994 from Mr. Duong, Mrs. Cam, and Mrs. Thao authorizing Mr. Hung to manage their inheritance portions in the house at 66 Dong Xuan. Mr. Hung later submitted documents from 1995 by Mr. Duong, Mrs. Thao, and Mrs. Cam giving their inheritance shares in the disputed estate to Mr. Hung definitively. These documents bore stamps and seals of the respective countries (Mr. Duong in the UK, Mrs. Cam in France, Mrs. Thao in the USA) but were photocopies. However, the documents stated clear addresses of the authors. After the case resumed (post-1997 suspension), Mr. Hung, Mrs. Tien, and Mrs. Hau declared that Mr. Duong and Mrs. Thao died around 2002. Mr. Hung confirmed Mrs. Cam’s and Mrs. Thao's addresses remained unchanged, and he contacted Mr. Duong’s heirs but received no response (exhibits 376, 377, 382). The primary court demanded that Mr. Hung provide Mr. Duong’s and Mrs. Thao’s death certificates, names, and addresses of Mr. Duong’s and Mrs. Thao’s heirs. Mr. Hung reported his inability to provide such details and requested the court to gather evidence per legal procedures (exhibit 390). Accordingly, the case file indicates the addresses of the heirs abroad; demanding that Mr. Hung provide Mr. Duong’s and Mrs. Thao’s death certificates was unnecessary, as all three residing members confirmed their deaths. The primary court should have undertaken judicial entrustment procedures as per the law, collected evidence on Mr. Duong and Mrs. Thao’s deaths and if their heirs exist, consulted them on case resolution. Based on new evidence, the court should have settled the case per the law. If no further evidence could be obtained, it should still address Mr. Hung’s legal inheritance claim, temporarily assigning Mr. Duong's and Mrs. Thao’s shares to domestic heirs for later lawful transfer to their heirs, ensuring case resolution. The responsibility to provide the names of those living in Mrs. Tien’s sold portion lay with Mrs. Tien. The primary court’s demand that Mr. Hung provide these details was erroneous. Suspending the case due to Mr. Hung’s inability to provide heirs’ names and addresses was incorrect. The appellate court should have annulled the primary decision and remanded for retrial, rather than upholding it.
Additionally, based on case documents and Mr. Hoang Manh Khoi’s statement on October 17, 2007 (exhibit 373) and the “House Sale Agreement” on October 31, 1993 (exhibit 18), Mrs. Hau sold her managed portion to Mrs. Ha Thuy Linh (spouse: Mr. Hoang Manh Khoi). Meanwhile, primary and appellate decisions mistakenly recorded Mrs. Nguyen Thi Thuy Linh, requiring correction for accuracy.
Therefore, pursuant to Clause 3, Article 297 and Article 299 of the Civil Procedure Code:
---
(Note: The provided segment ends abruptly, so the succeeding context is assumed to involve the Judicial Council reaching a final decision based on presented conclusions and legal provisions.)DECISION
-
Annul Decision No. 44/2010/QD-PT dated March 9, 2010, of the Appellate Court of the Supreme People's Court in Hanoi and annul the Decision to suspend the resolution of the civil case No. 54/2009/DS-ST dated September 30, 2009, of the People's Court of Hanoi City regarding the inheritance dispute between the plaintiff Mr. Vu Dinh Hung and the defendants Mrs. Vu Thi Tien, Mrs. Vu Thi Hau; the persons with related rights and obligations are Mr. Vu Dinh Duong, Mrs. Vu Thi Cam, Mrs. Vu Thi Thao, Mrs. Nguyen Thi Kim Oanh, and Mrs. Ha Thuy Linh.
-
Transmit the case file to the People's Court of Hanoi City to re-hold a first-instance trial in accordance with the law.
CONTENTS OF THE CASE LAW
“The first-instance court should have conducted judicial entrustment procedures as prescribed to collect evidence regarding Mr. Duong and Mrs. Thao to clarify the time of their deaths, and if these deceased persons have heirs, those heirs' viewpoints on resolving the case should be sought. Depending on the new evidence collected, the case should be resolved in accordance with the law. If no further evidence can be collected, the court must still address Mr. Hung's request to inherit under the law, with Mr. Duong and Mrs. Thao's inheritance portions temporarily managed by those currently living in the country so that their heirs can later claim them in accordance with the law, thereby conclusively resolving the case. For those currently living on the property sold by Mrs. Tien, it is her obligation to provide their names. The first-instance court's request for Mr. Hung to provide the names of these individuals was incorrect. The first-instance court's view that Mr. Hung did not provide the names and addresses of Mr. Duong's and Mrs. Thao's children or the buyer of Mrs. Oanh's house to suspend the case resolution was incorrect. The appellate court should have annulled the first-instance decision to have the case re-resolved, but it maintained the first-instance decision, which was incorrect.”
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
- Key word:
- Inheritance Dispute
- precedent
- Vietnam
.jpg)
