CASE LAW NO. 06/2016/AL

Cassation Decision No. 100/2013/GDT-DS dated August 12^th, 2013 of the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court regarding the “Inheritance Dispute” case in Hà Nội

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. 100/2013/GDT-DS dated August 12^th, 2013 of the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court regarding the “Inheritance Dispute” case in Hà Nội, between the plaintiff Mr. Vũ Đình Hưng and the defendants Mrs. Vũ Thị Tiến (alias Hiền), Mrs. Vũ Thị Hậu; parties with relevant rights and obligations including Mr. Vũ Đình Đường, Vũ Thị Cẩm, Vũ Thị Thảo, Nguyễn Thị Kim Oanh, Hà Thùy Linh.

Summary of the Case Law:

In a case involving inheritance disputes where heirs reside abroad, if the Court has executed letters rogatory and gathered evidence in accordance with legal provisions but cannot ascertain the addresses of those individuals, the Court must still address the plaintiff’s claims. If the inheritance and heirs are identified, and the deceased left no will, the Court divides the inheritance among the plaintiffs according to legal provisions. The portion of the inheritance of absent heirs, whose addresses cannot be determined, is temporarily entrusted to residents within the country for management and later transfer to the absent heirs.

Relevant Legal Provisions:

– Article 93; Point d, Clause 1 of Article 168 of the Civil Procedure Code 2004;

– Articles 676 and 685 of the Civil Code 2005.

Keywords:

“Inheritance dispute”; “Heirs residing abroad with unknown addresses”; “Legal representation”; “Division of inheritance”; “Management of inheritance”.

CASE DETAILS

According to the lawsuit filed in July 1993, the plaintiff Mr. Vũ Đình Hưng stated:

His parents, Mr. Vũ Đình Quảng and Mrs. Nguyễn Thị Thênh, had six children: Mr. Vũ Đình Đường, Mrs. Vũ Thị Cẩm, Mrs. Vũ Thị Thảo, Mr. Vũ Thị Tiến (alias Hiền), and Mrs. Vũ Thị Hậu. Mr. Quang passed away in 1979 without leaving a will. Mrs. Thênh and three of their children (Mrs. Hậu, Mrs. Tiến, Mr. Đường) continued to reside at 66 Đồng Xuân Street, Hoàn Kiếm District, Hà Nội, a property measuring 123m².

The remaining children (Mr. Đường, Mrs. Thảo, Mrs. Cẩm) had emigrated. In a family meeting on October 28^th, 1982, Mrs. Thênh and Mrs. Tiến and Mrs. Hậu agreed to temporarily divide the house into three parts for their use. In 1987, Mrs. Thênh passed away. Subsequently, in 1989, Mrs. Tiến secretly sold her share of the house to Mrs. Nguyễn Thị Kim Oanh. Even though Mr. Hưng already filed a lawsuit seeking a legal division of his parents’ inheritance according to the law, Mrs. Hậu sold her share of the house to Mrs. Hà Thùy Linh.

Those house sales were wrong. Mr. Hưng had determined that the three siblings living abroad (who were Mr. Đường, Mrs. Thảo, Mrs. Cẩm) had written documents granting him their share of the inheritance, and thus requested the division of his parents’ estate according to the law.

Mr. Hưng presented photocopies of powers of attorney dated March 3^rd, 1992, from Mr. Vũ Đình Đường, May 1^st, 1993, from Mrs. Vũ Thị Cẩm, and October 28^th, 1991, from Mrs. Vũ Thị Thảo. These documents authorized Mr. Hưng to manage and oversee their respective shares of the property at 66 Đồng Xuân, which constitutes 1/6 of the house.

Following the filing of the lawsuit, Mr. Hưng submitted additional documents titled “Complete Transfer of Inheritance Rights” dated April 25^th, 1995, from Mr. Vũ Đình Đường; “Complete Transfer of Inheritance Rights” dated May 10^th, 1995, from Mrs. Vũ Thị Cẩm; and “Complete Transfer of Inheritance Rights” from Mrs. Vũ Thị Thảo. These documents, all executed abroad, affirmed that the house at 66 Đồng Xuân was left by the parents to their six children.

However, Mrs. Tiến (Hiền) and Mrs. Hậu violated the mother’s wish (which prohibited the sale or allowing outsiders to reside in the house) by selling their inherited portions of the house. Mr. Đường, Mrs. Thảo, and Mrs. Cẩm executed these documents to transfer their respective 1/6 inheritance shares of the house at 66 Đồng Xuân to Mr. Hưng. The purpose of this transfer was to enable Mr. Hưng to maintain the ancestral worship and provide a place for the families of the overseas descendants to return for ancestral worship. They requested that Mr. Hưng be granted inheritance rights in kind. (All documents presented by Mr. Hưng were photocopies).

The defendants stated:

Mrs. Vũ Thị Tiến stated: She confirms the familial relationship and the origin of the house at 66 Đồng Xuân as presented by Mr. Hưng. In 1989, she sold her allotted portion of the house to Mrs. Oanh, handed over the property, and completed the house sale procedures at the Hà Nội Department of Housing and Land for the buyer. After moving in, Mrs. Oanh made an agreement with Mr. Hưng and Mrs. Hậu to exchange certain parts of the house to facilitate more convenient use for all parties.

Subsequently, due to a complaint from Mr. Hưng, the Department of Housing and Land revoked the house sale records between her and Mrs. Oanh. Mrs. Hậu also sold her allotted portion of the house to another party. Mrs. Tiến confirmed that the funds provided by Mr. Thênh enabled the three individuals to go abroad, and thus, they had no further claims on this house. Having sold her portion of the house to Mrs. Oanh, Mrs. Tiến asserts that she bears no responsibility for the sold portion of the house.

Mrs. Vũ Thị Hậu stated: She confirms the familial relationship and the origin of the house at 66 Đồng Xuân as presented by Mr. Hưng, as well as the division of the house and the sale by Mrs. Tiến as presented by Mrs. Tiến. She asserts that she informed her overseas siblings about the sale, and they all agreed. She requests to be allocated the portion of the house she sold to Mrs. Linh and Mr. Khôi.

Parties with relevant rights and obligations stated:

Mr. Hoàng Mạnh Khôi and Mrs. Hà Thùy Linh stated: When they purchased the house, Mrs. Hậu showed them the minutes of the family meeting, which prompted their agreement to buy. They paid in full and have resided there since. They request the legalization of the portion of the house they bought from Mrs. Hậu.

Mrs. Nguyễn Thị Kim Oanh stated: On October 18^th, 1992, she purchased the portion of the house allocated to Mrs. Tiến for 30,000,000 VND. The sale was approved by the authorities. After purchasing the house, she moved in and agreed on certain usage exchanges of the house with Mr. Hưng. She requests the recognition of the house sale contract between her and Mrs. Tiến.

In the First Instance Civil Judgment No. 20/DSST dated May 23^rd, 1995, the Hà Nội People’s Court accepted the inheritance division request by Mr. Hưng, Mr. Đường, Mrs. Cẩm, and Mrs. Thảo, represented by Mr. Hưng, to divide the inheritance from Mr. Quảng and Mrs. Thênh. The court accepted part of Mrs. Thênh’s will dated October 28^th, 1982, determining the inheritance value to be 1,228,151,520 VND, and divided the inheritance in kind (house and land) among Mr. Hưng, Mrs. Hậu, and Mrs. Tiến. The sales between Mrs. Tiến, Mrs. Hậu, and Mrs. Oanh, Mrs. Linh were conducted according to state regulations.

Mrs. Tiến appealed, requesting a reconsideration of the method used to calculate the inheritance area. Mr. Hưng appealed, asserting that the court’s decision was not impartial.

In the Appellate Civil Judgment No. 115 dated October 10^th, 1995, the Appellate Court of the Supreme People’s Court in Hà Nội decided to vacate the First Instance Judgment and remand the case to the Hà Nội People’s Court for retrial.

In the First Instance Civil Judgment No. 50/DSST dated September 11^th, 1996, the Hà Nội People’s Court decided to accept the inheritance division request by Mr. Hưng, Mr. Đường, Mrs. Cẩm, and Mrs. Thảo, represented by Mr. Hưng, to divide the inheritance from Mr. Quảng and Mrs. Thênh.

It recorded the voluntary waiver of inheritance shares by Mr. Đường, Mrs. Cẩm, and Mrs. Thảo in favor of Mr. Hưng, and divided the property among Mr. Hưng, Mrs. Hậu, and Mrs. Tiến (each receiving one-third of the storefront and the rear house portion). Mrs. Hậu and Mrs. Tiến were required to compensate Mr. Hưng for the difference (Mrs. Hậu: 156,824,381 VND; Mrs. Tiến: 140,774,106 VND). The house sales between Mrs. Tiến, Mrs. Hậu, and Mrs. Oanh, Mrs. Linh were declared illegal.

Mr. Hưng appealed.

In Decision No. 82/TĐC dated July 15^th, 1997, the Supreme People’s Court temporarily suspended the case proceedings.

Following Resolution No. 1037/2006/NQ-UBTVQH11 dated July 27^th, 2006, of the Standing Committee of the National Assembly on civil transactions related to housing established before July 1^st, 1991, involving Vietnamese residing abroad, the Supreme People’s Court’s appellate chamber in Hà Nội continued to handle the case.

In the Appellate Civil Judgment No. 142/2007/DSPT dated July 3^rd, 2007, the Supreme People’s Court’s appellate chamber in Hà Nội vacated the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the Hà Nội People’s Court for retrial, concluding that only Mr. Hưng had initiated and signed the lawsuit, and the powers of attorney from Mr. Đường, Ms. Thảo, and Ms. Cẩm did not authorize them to initiate the inheritance partition lawsuit (except for Ms. Thảo’s). Given that Mr. Đường and Ms. Thảo were deceased, their heirs needed verification and inclusion in the proceedings; the house and land were to be revalued appropriately.

Upon rehearing, the parties stated that Mr. Đường and Ms. Thảo had passed away around 2002. The first-instance court had previously requested Mr. Hưng to provide death certificates for Mr. Đường and Ms. Thảo, and to supplement the lawsuit according to Clause 2, Article 164 of the Civil Procedure Code (names, addresses, nationalities of Mr. Đường and Ms. Thảo’s children; names, addresses of occupants of the disputed property). However, Mr. Hưng failed to provide these documents.

In Decision No. 04/2008/QĐST-DS dated January 17^th, 2008, the Hà Nội People’s Court suspended the case proceedings and temporarily refunded litigation costs to Mr. Hưng.

On January 29^th, 2008, Mr. Hưng appealed, arguing that the court’s decision to suspend the case proceedings was incorrect.

In Decision No. 168/2008/DS-QĐPT dated September 4^th, 2008, the Supreme People’s Court’s appellate chamber in Hà Nội accepted Mr. Hưng’s appeal, overturning the first-instance decision on grounds that the first-instance court’s application of Clause 2, Article 192 to suspend the case proceedings was incorrect, thereby depriving the plaintiff of litigation rights. Upon rehearing, the Hà Nội People’s Court requested Mr. Hưng to provide documents regarding the names, ages, addresses of Mr. Đường and Ms. Thảo’s heirs; powers of attorney or disclaimers from these individuals; names and addresses of occupants at Ms. Oanh’s property. Mr. Hưng failed to provide these documents.

In Decision No. 54/DS-ST dated September 30, 2009, the Hà Nội People’s Court decided to suspend the inheritance partition case proceedings, returning the plaintiff’s lawsuit and accompanying evidence to Mr. Hưng.

Mr. Hưng filed an appeal.

In Decision No. 44/2010/QĐ-PT dated March 9^th, 2010, the Supreme People’s Court’s appellate chamber in Hà Nội upheld the first-instance decision.

Mr. Hưng filed a petition requesting cassation review.

In Decision No. 35/2013/KN-DS dated January 22^nd, 2013, the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court appealed Decision No. 44/2010/QĐ-PT dated March 9^th, 2010, of the Supreme People’s Court’s appellate chamber in Hà Nội. The Chief Justice requested the Supreme People’s Court’s Judicial Council to open cassation trial, vacate the aforementioned Appellate Civil Judgment, and vacate Decision No. 54/2009/DS-ST dated September 30^th, 2009, of the Hà Nội People’s Court, remand the case file to the Hà Nội People’s Court for retrial in accordance with legal provisions.

During the cassation trial, the representative of the Supreme People’s Procuracy agreed with the Chief Justice’s appeal.

The Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court concluded:

The house at 66 Đồng Xuân Street, Hoàn Kiếm District, Hà Nội, established by Mr. Vũ Đình Quảng (died in 1979) and Mrs. Nguyễn Thị Thênh (died in 1987), they had six children, with three residing abroad since 1979, namely Mr. Vũ Đình Đường, Mrs. Vũ Thị Cẩm, and Mrs. Vũ Thị Thảo; and three residing in Vietnam, namely Mr. Vũ Đình Hưng, Mrs. Vũ Thị Tiến (Hiền), and Mrs. Vũ Thị Hậu.

After Mr. Quảng’s death, only Mrs. Thênh remained, and Mr. Hưng, Ms. Tiến, and Ms. Hậu managed this house. After Mrs. Thênh’s death, Mr. Hưng, Mrs. Tiến, and Mrs. Hậu voluntarily divided the house into three parts for residence. On October 18^th, 1992, Mrs. Tiến sold her portion of the house to Mrs. Nguyễn Thị Kim Oanh, and on October 31^st, 1993, Mrs. Hậu sold her residing portion to Mrs. Hà Thùy Linh.

In 1993, Mr. Hưng initiated a lawsuit requesting the division of his parents’ estate (land and house) according to the law. The resolution of the case extended from 1993 to 1996 and was temporarily suspended from appellate review in 1997. The case was reopened in 2007.

During the initial proceedings, before the temporary suspension in 1997, Mr. Hưng submitted various applications and powers of attorney dated 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994 from Mr. Đường, Mrs. Cẩm, and Mrs. Thảo. These documents authorized Mr. Hưng to oversee and manage their respective shares of the inheritance, specifically the house and land at 66 Đồng Xuân Street. Subsequently, in 1995, Mr. Hưng provided additional documents from Mr. Đường, Mrs. Thảo, and Mrs. Cẩm, which transferred their inheritance shares entirely to him. These documents bore stamps and seals from the respective countries where Mr. Đường (UK), Mrs. Cẩm (France), and Mrs. Thảo (USA) resided, but only photocopies were provided. However, the documents clearly listed the addresses of the authors.

During the reprocessing of the case after the suspension, Mr. Hưng, Mrs. Tiến, and Mrs. Hậu testified that Mr. Đường and Mrs. Thảo had died around 2002. Mr. Hưng confirmed that the addresses of Mrs. Cẩm and Mrs. Thảo remained unchanged and that he had attempted to contact Mr. Đường’s children but received no response (exhibits 376, 377, 382). The trial court requested Mr. Hưng to provide death certificates for Mr. Đường and Mrs. Thảo, as well as the names and addresses of their children. Mr. Hưng stated that he could not provide these documents and requested the court to gather evidence according to the law (exhibit 390).

Given that the addresses of the overseas individuals were already in the file, the trial court’s request for death certificates was unnecessary, as all three individuals within the country confirmed the deaths of Mr. Đường and Mrs. Thảo. The trial court should have carried out the letters rogatory procedures as per the regulations to collect evidence regarding Mr. Đường and Mrs. Thảo to clarify the time of their deaths. If these deceased individuals had heirs, their opinions on the resolution of the case should be sought.

Based on the new evidence, the case should be resolved according to the law. If no further evidence could be collected, Mr. Hưng’s inheritance claim should still be addressed, with Mr. Đường’s and Mrs. Thảo’s inheritance shares temporarily managed by those living in the country. Their heirs would then have the right to claim their shares according to the law, thus resolving the case conclusively.

For those residing in the portion of the house sold by Mrs. Tiến, the responsibility for providing their names lies with Mrs. Tiến. The trial court’s request for Mr. Hưng to provide these names was incorrect. The trial court’s decision to suspend the case due to Mr. Hưng’s inability to provide the names and addresses of Mr. Đường’s and Mrs. Thảo’s children, as well as the buyer of Mrs. Oanh’s house, was erroneous. The appellate court should have vacated the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for retrial but instead upheld the trial court’s judgment, which was incorrect.

Additionally, according to the case file and the testimony of Mr. Hoàng Mạnh Khôi on October 17^th, 2007 (exhibit 373), and the “House Sale Agreement” dated October 31^st, 1993 (exhibit 18), Mrs. Hậu sold the portion of the house she managed to Mrs. Hà Thùy Linh (Mr. Hoàng Mạnh Khôi’s wife). The trial and appellate decisions erroneously recorded the buyer as Mrs. Nguyễn Thị Thùy Linh, requiring correction.

In light of the foregoing, pursuant to Clause 3, Article 297, and Article 299 of the Civil Procedure Code:

DECISION

1. Vacate Decision No. 44/2010/QĐ-PT dated March 9^th, 2010, of the Appellate Court of the Supreme People’s Court in Hanoi and vacate the Decision to Suspend the Resolution of Civil Case No. 54/2009/DS-ST dated September 30^th, 2009, of the Hanoi People’s Court regarding the inheritance dispute case between the plaintiff Mr. Vũ Đình Hưng and the defendants Mrs. Vũ Thị Tiến and Mrs. Vũ Thị Hậu; and related parties Mr. Vũ Đình Đường, Mrs. Vũ Thị Cẩm, Mrs. Vũ Thị Thảo, Mrs. Nguyễn Thị Kim Oanh, and Mrs. Hà Thùy Linh.
2. Remand the case file to the Hanoi People’s Court for retrial according to the law.

CONTENT OF THE CASE LAW

“The trial court should have carried out the judicial entrustment procedures as per the regulations to collect evidence regarding Mr. Đường and Mrs. Thảo to clarify the time of their deaths. If these deceased individuals had heirs, their opinions on the resolution of the case should be sought. Based on the new evidence, the case should be resolved according to the law. If no further evidence could be collected, Mr. Hưng’s inheritance claim should still be addressed, with Mr. Đường’s and Mrs. Thảo’s inheritance shares temporarily managed by those living in the country.

Their heirs would then have the right to claim their shares according to the law, thus resolving the case conclusively. For those residing in the portion of the house sold by Mrs. Tiến, the responsibility for providing their names lies with Mrs. Tiến. The trial court’s request for Mr. Hưng to provide these names was incorrect.

The trial court’s decision to suspend the case due to Mr. Hưng’s inability to provide the names and addresses of Mr. Đường’s and Mrs. Thảo’s children, as well as the buyer of Mrs. Oanh’s house, was erroneous. The appellate court should have annulled the trial court’s decision and remanded the case for reprocessing but instead upheld the trial court’s decision, which was incorrect.”

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

You can also download the .docx version here.