CASE LAW NO. 04/2016/AL on land disputes

CASE LAW NO. 04/2016/AL

Cassation Decision No. 04/2010/QĐ-HĐTP dated March 3^rd, 2010, of the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court regarding the case of “Dispute over land use rights transfer contract” in Hà Nội City

Approved by the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court on April 6^th, 2016, and published under Decision No. 220/QĐ-CA on April 6^th, 2016, by the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court.

Source of the Case Law:

Cassation Decision No. 04/2010/QĐ-HĐTP dated March 3^rd, 2010, of the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court regarding the case of “Dispute over land use rights transfer contract” in Hà Nội City between the plaintiffs, Mrs. Kiều Thị Tý and Mr. Chu Văn Tiến, and the defendant, Mr. Lê Văn Ngự; parties with relevant rights and interests include Mrs. Lê Thị Quý, Mrs. Trần Thị Phấn, Mr. Lê Văn Tám, Mrs. Lê Thị Tưởng, Mr. Lê Đức Lợi, Mrs. Lê Thị Đường, Mr. Lê Mạnh Hải, and Mrs. Lê Thị Nhâm.

Summary of the Case Law:

In instances where a house and land are joint marital assets, and only one spouse signs a contract to transfer the house and land to another party, while the other spouse does not sign the contract; if there is sufficient evidence to confirm that the transferring party has received the full payment as agreed, the non-signing spouse is aware of and utilizes the transfer money, the receiving party has publicly managed and used the house and land, and the non-signing spouse is aware of this without raising any objections, it must be determined that the non-signing spouse agrees to the transfer of the house and land.

Relevant Legal Provisions:

– Clause 2, Article 176 of the Civil Code of 1995;

– Article 15 of the Marriage and Family Law of 1986.

Keywords:

“Dispute over land use rights transfer contract”; “Disposition of joint marital property”; “Establishment of ownership by agreement”.

CASE DETAILS

In the complaint dated November 5^th, 2007, and during the resolution process of the case, the plaintiff, Mrs. Kiều Thị Tý, presented the following:

In 1996, her family purchased two grade-4 houses on a residential land area of approximately 160m² from Mr. Lê Văn Ngự’s family in Xuân La Commune, Từ Liêm District, Hà Nội City (now Group 11, Cluster 2, Xuân La Ward, Tây Hồ District, Hà Nội City). A contract was drawn up detailing the properties, houses on the land, and the boundaries of the plot.

Since her family did not have a permanent residence registration in Hà Nội, the local authorities did not certify the sale between her family and Mr. Ngự’s family. The purchase price was 110 taels of gold, which she fully paid to Mr. Ngự’s family, and they handed over the house and land for her management and use.

After purchasing the house and land, Mr. Ngự’s family borrowed one house (the inner one) to use and store building materials while they constructed a new house. The area facing Xuân La Road was lent to her cousin for studying purposes. Once Mr. Ngự’s family finished building their house, they returned the house and land to her.

She demolished the old house, elevated the ground, and built a new house for her relatives to live in. In 2001, she rented it out as a carpentry workshop but later ceased renting it and closed it for non-use.

In 2006 (after she registered her residence in Hà Nội), when she applied for ownership and land use rights documents, Mr. Ngự’s family caused difficulties, claiming she still owed more than 3 taels of gold and that they only sold the inner house and land, while the house and land facing Xuân La Road remained their property.

At the end of 2006, Mr. Ngự forcibly broke into the property and constructed a wall dividing the front porch of the grade-4 house facing Xuân La Road (currently rented out as a hair salon). She requested the court to enforce the contract and compel Mr. Ngự’s family to return the house and land (the portion facing Xuân La Road).

The defendant, Mr. Lê Văn Ngự, stated:

In 1996, his family sold part of their house and land to Mr. Tiến and Mrs. Tý. They agreed to sell the portion facing Xuân La Road, with a width of 7m and the entire depth of his family’s land. They deducted 21m² for a road boundary set by the State, thus selling only the grade-4 house on a 140m² plot.

The purchase price was 6 gold maces/m² for 42m² facing the road, totaling 25.2 taels, and 9 gold maces/m² for 98m² inside, totaling 88.2 taels. In total, the price was 113.4 taels, of which Mr. Tiến and Mrs. Tý paid 110 taels, leaving a balance of 3.4 taels.

His family handed over the house and land to Mrs. Tý, but they retained 21m² facing the road within the State’s boundary. Currently, due to changes in State planning, the road was not opened, so his family retained management and use rights, and the house and land bought by Mr. Tiến and Mrs. Tý had no access.

Mrs. Tý now demands the 21m² facing Xuân La Road, which he does not agree to. If Mr. Tiến and Mrs. Tý want to manage and use the land facing the road and access the inner house and land, they must return a 2m-wide strip along the road’s width and pay an additional 160 million VND.

Related Parties:

Mrs. Trần Thị Phấn agreed with Mr. Ngự’s statement.

Mr. Lê Đức Lợi, Mr. Lê Văn Tám, Mr. Lê Mạnh Hải, Mrs. Lê Thị Đường, Mrs. Lê Thị Tưởng, and Mrs. Lê Thị Nhâm concurred with Mr. Ngự’s statement.

First Instance Civil Judgment No. 27/2008/DS-ST dated April 25^th, 2008, of the Hà Nội People’s Court:

The court accepted the claim to reclaim the 23.4m² house and land at 39 Xuân La Road of Mr. Tiến and Mrs. Tý against Mr. Ngự’s family.

It ordered Mr. Ngự’s family, Mrs. Trần Thị Phấn, Mrs. Lê Thị Quý (tenant), and Mr. Ngự’s children to return the 23.4m² house and land at 39 Xuân La Road to Mr. Tiến’s family, represented by Mrs. Tý.

Mrs. Tý was required to pay Mr. Ngự’s family 13,759,000 VND for construction and renovation on the 23.4m²; she would own the materials and labor used in that area.

Mrs. Tý could open a path to access the inner house and land and block the rear path to Mr. Ngự and Mrs. Phấn’s land.

Mr. Ngự, Mrs. Phấn, and Mrs. Tý were responsible for completing the transfer procedures at the competent State agency for the sold house and land. If Mr. Ngự’s family caused difficulties, Mrs. Tý could unilaterally approach the competent State agency to file for title registration.

The court also ruled on court fees and the litigants’ right to appeal.

Appellate Proceedings:

On May 8^th, 2008, Mr. Lê Văn Ngự and Ms. Trần Thị Phấn filed an appeal requesting the appellate court to annul the land and house transfer contract signed with Ms. Kiều Thị Tý and Mr. Chu Văn Tiến on the grounds that the contract signing and receipt of payment were conducted solely by Mr. Ngự without Mrs. Phấn’s knowledge.

In Decision No. 02/QĐ-VKSNDTC-VPT1 dated May 28^th, 2008, the Chief Prosecutor of the Supreme People’s Procuracy lodged a protest requesting the Appellate Court of the Supreme People’s Court in Hà Nội to hear the appeal and compel Mr. Ngự to dismantle the unauthorized construction on Mrs. Tý’s land, restoring it to its original state. Additionally, the protest suggested that Mrs. Tý should not compensate Mr. Ngự with 13,759,000 VND and requested reconsideration of the first-instance court fees for both Mr. Ngự and Mrs. Tý.

In Appellate Judgment No. 162/2008/DS-PT dated September 4^th, 2008, the Appellate Court of the Supreme People’s Court in Hà Nội ruled to reject the appeal by Mr. Lê Văn Ngự and Ms. Trần Thị Phấn and to accept the protest Decision No. 02/QĐ-VKSNDTC-VPT1 dated May 28^th, 2008, by the Supreme People’s Procuracy, amending part of the first-instance judgment as follows:

– Accept the claim for the 23.4m² house and land at No. 39 Xuân La Street by Ms. Kiều Thị Tý and Mr. Chu Văn Tiến against Mr. Lê Văn Ngự and Ms. Trần Thị Phấn.

– Order Mr. Ngự, Mrs. Phấn, and their children, including Lê Đức Lợi, Lê Văn Tám, Lê Mạnh Hải, Lê Thị Đường, Lê Thị Tưởng, Lê Thị Nhâm, and tenant Ms. Lê Thị Quý, to return the 23.4m² house and land at No. 39 Xuân La Street, Xuân La Ward, Tây Hồ District, Hà Nội, to Ms. Kiều Thị Tý and Mr. Chu Văn Tiến (represented by Mrs. Tý).

– The value of the construction and renovation on the 23.4m² area, amounting to 13,759,000 VND, must be borne by Mr. Lê Văn Ngự and Ms. Trần Thị Phấn. They are required to dismantle the construction and renovation to return the property to its original state, with the dismantling costs to be borne by them.

– Mrs. Tý is entitled to create access to the inner land area and to seal the rear access to the property of Mr. Ngự and Mrs. Phấn.

– Mr. Ngự, Mrs. Phấn, and Mrs. Tý are responsible for completing the transfer procedures for the sold land and house with the competent state authority. If Mr. Ngự’s family obstructs, Mrs. Tý may directly approach the competent state authority for the registration of land use rights and house ownership.

– The court also ruled on court fees.

Further Developments:

Following the appellate proceedings, complaints dated October 21, 2008, and October 22, 2008, by Mr. Ngự and Mrs. Phấn contended that the house and land at No. 39 Xuân La Street were jointly owned by their family. They argued that Mr. Ngự unilaterally sold the property to Mrs. Tý and Mr. Tiến without Mrs. Phấn’s consent, rendering the contract invalid.

In Decision No. 63/QĐ-KNGĐT-V5 dated May 14^th, 2009, the Chief Prosecutor of the Supreme People’s Procuracy lodged a protest against the aforementioned appellate judgment, requesting the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court to conduct a cassation review, vacate the Appellate Judgment and the First-Instance Judgment No. 27/2008/DS-ST dated April 25^th, 2008, of the Hà Nội People’s Court, and remand the case for retrial. The protest noted:

– In 1996, Mr. Chu Văn Tiến and Ms. Kiều Thị Tý purchased two grade-4 houses on residential land adjacent to Xuân La Street, with a frontage of 7m and full depth of the plot owned by Mr. Lê Văn Ngự in Xuân La Commune, Từ Liêm District (now Xuân La Ward, Tây Hồ District). The parties executed a handwritten sale agreement but did not follow legal formalities.

After the purchase, Mrs. Tý demolished the existing structures, raised the foundation, and rebuilt as it currently stands. In late 2005, when Mrs. Tý applied for house and land ownership papers, Mr. Ngự’s family disputed the remaining debt of 3.4 taels of gold and claimed the inner house and land were sold while the frontage property remained with them.

– In late 2006, disputes and altercations occurred over the 21m² frontage land on Xuân La Street.

– On October 29, 2007^th, Ms. Kiều Thị Tý and Mr. Chu Văn Tiến filed a lawsuit claiming ownership of the house and land through the sale contract dated April 26^th, 1996, with Mr. Lê Văn Ngự and Ms. Trần Thị Phấn. The sale contract did not comply with legal requirements for both form and content; Mr. Ngự’s family claimed a remaining debt of 3.4 taels of gold and disputed the sale of the frontage land. Consequently, Mr. Ngự and Mrs. Phấn refused to allow registration of ownership transfer to Mrs. Tý and Mr. Tiến. The property remains registered under Mr. Ngự and Mrs. Phấn.

– The first-instance and appellate courts incorrectly identified the legal relationship as a “dispute over house and land ownership” and applied Articles 255 and 256 of the Civil Code, effectively granting ownership to Mrs. Tý and Mr. Tiến without resolving the contract’s disputes. The sale contract remains contested, preventing the registration of ownership transfer to Mrs. Tý and Mr. Tiến. Therefore, both judgments should be vacated, and the case remanded for proper identification of the legal relationship to ensure the parties’ and State’s rights and interests.

At the cassation hearing, the representative of the Supreme People’s Procuracy urged the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court to accept the protest by the Chief Prosecutor of the Supreme People’s Procuracy.

The Judicial Council’s Deliberation:

Based on the lawsuit filed on November 5^th, 2007, and the testimonies of Mrs. Tý and Mr. Tiến during the case proceedings, it is evident that Mrs. Tý and Mr. Tiến requested Mr. Ngự and Mrs. Phấn to return the entire house and land that had been transferred to them but was still being occupied by Mr. Ngự and his wife. They also demanded the demolition of the illegal construction on the disputed land. Therefore, the plaintiffs were seeking to reclaim the ownership of the house and land transferred under the contract dated April 26^th, 1996.

Meanwhile, Mr. Ngự and Mrs. Phấn claimed that the disputed land remained their property as it had not been transferred to Mrs. Tý and Mr. Tiến. Thus, it is evident that the parties were disputing both the ownership of the property and the validity of the transfer contract. However, the first-instance and appellate courts only identified the legal issue as a dispute over property ownership, which was insufficient.

Nonetheless, both courts effectively addressed the two disputed matters. Therefore, the protest No. 63/QĐ-KNGĐT-V5 dated May 14^th, 2009, by the Chief Prosecutor of the Supreme People’s Procuracy, asserting that the courts misidentified the legal issue and calling for the vacation of both judgments for a retrial, was inaccurate and unnecessary.

Regarding the April 26^th, 1996, House and Land Sale Contract:

The house and land transfer occurred in 1996. After purchasing the property, Mr. Tiến and Mrs. Tý paid in full, took possession, elevated the ground, renovated the house, and allowed their relatives to live there. Meanwhile, Mr. Ngự and Mrs. Phấn’s family continued to reside on the remaining land adjacent to the property of Mr. Tiến and Mrs. Tý. According to the testimonies of Mr. Ngự and Mrs. Phấn’s children, after selling the house and land to Mrs. Tý and Mr. Tiến, Mr. Ngự and Mrs. Phấn divided the proceeds among their children.

Furthermore, after the transfer, on April 26, 1996, Mr. Ngự wrote a “commitment letter” stating he would temporarily use the transferred house and land while reconstructing the house on the remaining land. In reality, Mr. Ngự and Mrs. Phấn did use the transferred property during their construction. Thus, it can be concluded that Mrs. Phấn was aware of and agreed to the transfer, and her subsequent complaint that she was unaware of the transfer is unfounded.

During the case proceedings, Mr. Ngự and Mrs. Phấn also claimed the sale price was 113.4 taels of gold. However, they failed to provide evidence supporting this claim. The contract dated April 26^th, 1996, stipulated a sale price of 110 taels of gold, and in a payment receipt dated May 9, 2000, Mr. Ngự acknowledged, “I have received the remaining amount from the sale of the house and land to Mr. Tiến and Mrs. Tý…”. The note further confirmed that the total amount received was 110 taels of gold. Therefore, it is established that the sale price was 110 taels of gold, which was fully paid by Mr. Ngự and Mrs. Phấn.

Although the contract did not specify the exact transferred land area, it clearly outlined the boundaries: “The land plot has a frontage of 7m from the dividing wall with Mr. Tay’s house; Northeast borders Xuân La – Xuân Đỉnh road; Southeast borders Mr. Lê Văn Tay’s land; Southwest borders Ms. Lê Thị Soát and Mr. Vinh’s land; Northwest borders Mr. Ngự’s remaining land. The plot extends from Xuân La – Xuân Đỉnh road to the end of the plot…”.

Additionally, both parties agreed that if the State required the land for road construction, Mr. Tiến would be entitled to the full compensation. Therefore, the transferred land included the disputed area adjacent to Xuân La – Xuân Đỉnh road.

Consequently, the courts determined that the 23.4m² land adjacent to Xuân La – Xuân Đỉnh road was part of the land transferred by Mr. Ngự to Mrs. Tý, and they confirmed that Mrs. Tý and Mr. Tiến paid the full 110 taels of gold and took possession of the property. Thus, requiring Mr. Ngự’s family to return the entire 23.4m² house and land at No. 39 Xuân La Street, Xuân La Ward, Tây Hồ District, Hà Nội, to Ms. Kiều Thị Tý and Mr. Chu Văn Tiến was justified.

In light of the foregoing and in accordance with Clause 3 of Article 291 and Clause 1 of Article 297 of the Civil Procedure Code,

DECISION

Reject the protest No. 63/QĐ-KNGĐT-V5 dated May 14^th, 2009, by the Chief Prosecutor of the Supreme People’s Procuracy; uphold the Appellate Judgment No. 162/2008/DS-PT dated September 4^th, 2008, of the Appellate Court of the Supreme People’s Court in Hà Nội.

CONTENT OF THE CASE LAW

“Regarding the April 26^th, 1996, House and Land Sale Contract: The house and land transfer occurred in 1996. After purchasing the property, Mr. Tiến and Mrs. Tý paid in full, took possession, leveled the land, renovated the house, and allowed their relatives to live there. Meanwhile, Mr. Ngự and Mrs. Phấn‘s family continued to reside on the remaining land adjacent to the property of Mr. Tiến and Mrs. Tý. According to the testimonies of Mr. Ngự and Mrs. Phấn‘s children, after selling the house and land to Mrs. Tý and Mr. Tiến, Mr. Ngự and Mrs. Phấn divided the proceeds among their children.

Furthermore, after the transfer, on April 26, 1996, Mr. Ngự wrote a “commitment letter” stating he would temporarily use the transferred house and land while reconstructing the house on the remaining land. In reality, Mr. Ngự and Mrs. Phấn did use the transferred property during their construction. Thus, it can be concluded that Mrs. Phấn was aware of and agreed to the transfer, and her subsequent complaint that she was unaware of the transfer is unfounded.”

If you need more consulting, please Contact Us at TNHH NT International Law Firm (ntpartnerlawfirm.com)

You can also download the .docx version here.