CASE LAW NO. 56/2022/AL On the Resolution of Dispute Concerning the Grave Relocation (Please note that this image is not related to the specific case being discussed).

CASE LAW NO. 56/2022/AL

On the Resolution of Dispute Concerning the Grave Relocation

Approved by the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court on September 7^th, 2022, and published under Decision No. 323/QD-CA on October 14^th, 2022, by the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court.

Source of the Case Law:

The First-instance Civil Judgment No. 33/2019/DS-ST dated November 18^th, 2019, by the People’s Court of Châu Thành District, Kiên Giang Province, concerning the case “Request for Cessation of Obstruction in Grave Relocation” between the plaintiff, Mrs. Trần Thị Thu V, and the defendants, Mr. Vương Minh T and Mr. Vương Minh H.

Location of the Case Law’s Content:

Paragraph 4 of the “Court’s Opinion” section.

Summary of the Case Law:

– Case Background:

The husband passed away, and the wife arranged for the burial of her husband on the land of her husband’s family. Later, when the wife wanted to relocate her husband’s grave to her family’s land, a dispute arose.

– Legal Resolution:

In this case, the Court must determine that the wife has the right to relocate her husband’s grave for management and care purposes.

Relevant Legal Provisions:

– Clause 1, Article 7; Article 11; and Clause 1, Article 39 of the Civil Code 2015;

– Article 4 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015.

Keywords:

“Grave Relocation Dispute”; “Right to Care, Manage, and Relocate Graves”.

CASE DETAILS

According to the complaint filed on April 24^th, 2019, and statements made during the proceedings, Mrs. Trần Thị Thu V, the plaintiff, presented the following circumstances:

Her late husband, Mr. Vương Văn A, born in 1945, passed away in 2004. Before his death, he expressed a desire to be buried on their family land in Village B, Ward M, District C, Kiên Giang Province. However, due to the state planning status of their family land at the time of his death, Mrs. Thu V buried Mr. A on the land belonging to her brother-in-law, Mr. Vương Văn B, with the intention to later relocate his remains once the planning was finalized.

Now that their family land has been stabilized, Mrs. Thu V seeks to fulfill her husband’s wishes by moving his remains to their rightful family land. However, her nephews, Mr. Vương Minh T and Mr. Vương Minh H, have opposed this, refusing to permit the relocation of Mr. A’s remains.

During the trial, Mr. Phù Thanh S, authorized representative of Mrs. Trần Thị Thu V, requested the Court to compel Mr. Vương Minh T and Mr. Vương Minh H to cease obstructing her from relocating her husband’s remains to their family land.

In response, the defendants, Mr. Vương Minh T and Mr. Vương Minh H, stated the followings: 

Mr. Vương Văn A was their uncle. They highlighted that Mr. A was buried on their family land, now under the land use rights certificate of Mr. Vương Minh T. They expressed disagreement with the plaintiff’s request to halt their opposition to relocating Mr. A’s remains, arguing that there are currently no close relatives of Mr. A nearby to care for his grave. They asserted that they have been responsible for maintaining the grave for approximately 15 years and would only consider relocation once it is confirmed that there are relatives available to care for the grave.

During the trial session, they reiterated their stance against the plaintiff’s request.

The representative of the People’s Procuracy of Châu Thành District affirmed that the Judge and all participants in the trial adhered to the regulations of the Civil Procedure Code, from the case acceptance to the deliberations during the first-instance trial. They recommended that the Trial Panel uphold all of the plaintiff’s claims.

COURT’S OPINION:

[1] Mrs. Trần Thị Thu V, the plaintiff, has exercised her right to file a lawsuit in accordance with Clause 2, Article 4; Clause 14, Article 26; Point a, Clause 1, Article 35; and Point a, Clause 1, Article 39 of the Civil Procedure Code, falling under the jurisdiction of the People’s Court of Châu Thành District, Kiên Giang Province.

[2] Regarding the legal relationship of the dispute: The essence of this case revolves around the plaintiff’s request for Mr. Vương Minh T and Mr. Vương Minh H to cease obstructing her from relocating her late husband’s remains to her family’s land. Thus, the legal relationship in question is framed as a “Request for Cessation of Obstruction in Grave Relocation”.

[3] Concerning the merits: Throughout the proceedings, Mrs. Trần Thị Thu V and the defendants, Mr. Vương Minh T and Mr. Vương Minh H, confirmed that she had initially buried her husband, Mr. Vương Văn A, on the land of Mr. Vương Minh T, where his grave currently resides. Mrs. Trần Thị Thu V has petitioned the Court to compel Mr. Vương Minh T and Mr. Vương Minh H to cease their obstruction to relocating her husband’s remains. The defendants opposed her request, arguing that there are currently no close relatives of Mr. Vương Văn A available to tend to his grave.

[4] The Trial Panel has determined that all parties concurred during the proceedings that Mr. Vương Văn A’s grave is situated on the land belonging to Mr. Vương Minh T and Mr. Vương Minh H. Mrs. Trần Thị Thu V, as the lawful wife of Mr. Vương Văn A, now seeks to transfer his remains to her family’s land for proper burial and care. This request is supported by Vietnamese customs and traditions.

The defendants’ rationale for preventing Mrs. Trần Thị Thu V from relocating her husband’s remains lacks merit. As the legally recognized spouse of Mr. Vương Văn A, acknowledged by both law and the parties, Mrs. Trần Thị Thu V has the rights to visit, maintain, and oversee her husband’s grave, consistent with the moral and cultural values of Vietnam and Clause 1, Article 5 of the Civil Code 2015.

[5] Based on the foregoing considerations, the Trial Panel concludes that Mrs. Trần Thị Thu V’s lawsuit is well-founded and should be granted. Consequently, Mr. Vương Minh T and Mr. Vương Minh H are instructed to cease obstructing Mrs. Trần Thị Thu V from relocating her late husband’s remains.

[6] Regarding the initial civil court fees: Mr. Vương Minh T and Mr. Vương Minh H are each liable for paying an initial court fee of VND 300,000.

[7] Mrs. Trần Thị Thu V is to be reimbursed the advanced initial court fee of VND 300,000, as per receipt number 0009710 dated April 24, 2019, issued by the Civil Judgment Enforcement Department of Châu Thành District.

In light of the foregoing,

IT IS DECIDED:

Pursuant to Clause 2, Article 4; Clause 14, Article 26; Point a, Clause 1, Article 35; and Point a, Clause 1, Article 39 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015;

Pursuant to Articles 4, 5, and 14 of the Civil Code 2015;

Pursuant to Articles 18 and 27 of the Ordinance on Court Fees and Charges No. 10/2009/PL-UBTVQH12 dated February 27, 2009;

The Court hereby rules as follows:

1. The entire lawsuit request of the plaintiff Mrs. Trần Thị Thu V is accepted.
2. The defendants Mr. Vương Minh T and Mr. Vương Minh H are ordered to cease obstructing Mrs. Trần Thị Thu V from relocating her husband’s remains, Mr. Vương Văn A.
3. Regarding the first-instance civil court fees: Applying Article 147 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015, Articles 18 and 27 of the Ordinance on Court Fees and Charges No. 10/2009/PL-UBTVQH12 dated February 27^th, 2009, Mr. Vương Minh T and Mr. Vương Minh H are each required to pay a first-instance court fee of VND 300,000.
4. Mrs. Trần Thị Thu V is entitled to a refund of the provisional first-instance court fee of VND 300,000, as per receipt number 0009710 dated April 24^th, 2019, from the Civil Judgment Enforcement Department of Châu Thành District.
5. In the event that the judgment or decision is enforced according to Article 2 of the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement, the judgment creditors and the judgment debtors have the right to negotiate enforcement, request enforcement, voluntarily comply, or be compelled to comply in accordance with Articles 6, 7a, 7b, and 9 of the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement. The statute of limitations for enforcement shall be observed in accordance with Article 30 of the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement.
6. The litigants retain the right to appeal within 15 days from the date of judgment pronouncement. If they are absent from the trial or not present at the pronouncement of judgment for valid reasons, the time for appeal is calculated from the date of receipt of the judgment or its proper service.

CONTENT OF THE CASE LAW:

“[4] … all parties concurred during the proceedings that Mr. Vương Văn A’s grave is situated on the land belonging to Mr. Vương Minh T and Mr. Vương Minh H. Mrs. Trần Thị Thu V, as the lawful wife of Mr. Vương Văn A, now seeks to transfer his remains to her family’s land for proper burial and care. This request is supported by Vietnamese customs and traditions.

The defendants’ rationale for preventing Mrs. Trần Thị Thu V from relocating her husband’s remains lacks merit. As the legally recognized spouse of Mr. Vương Văn A, acknowledged by both law and the parties, Mrs. Trần Thị Thu V has the rights to visit, maintain, and oversee her husband’s grave, consistent with the moral and cultural values of Vietnam and Clause 1, Article 5 of the Civil Code 2015.”

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

You can also download the .docx version here.