CASE LAW NO. 38/2020/AL On the Non-Acceptance of Claims for Property Already Divided by a Legally Effective Judgment (Please note that this image is not related to the specific case being discussed).

CASE LAW NO. 38/2020/AL

On the Non-Acceptance of Claims for Property Already Divided by a Legally Effective Judgment

Approved by the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court on August 13^th, 2020, and published under Decision No. 276/QĐ-CA dated October 2^nd, 2020, by the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court.

Source of the Case Law:

The Cassation Decision No. 28/2019/DS-GĐT dated November 12^th, 2019, by the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court regarding the civil case of “Claim for Property” in Lâm Đồng Province, between the plaintiff, Mrs. Tô Thị M, and the defendants, Mrs. Nguyễn Thị Đ and Mrs. Phạm Thị H, the interested parties including 09 people.

Location of the Case Law’s Content:

Paragraph 2 of the “Court’s Opinion” section.

Summary of the Case Law:

– Case Background:

Following the formal division of property, which encompassed house ownership and land use rightss, through a legally effective judgment, an another party, who was not involved in the initial case, filed a lawsuit asserting ownership of the house and land use rightss.

– Legal Resolution:

Under these circumstances, the court must reject the filing of the new lawsuit. To assert ownership of the house and land use rightss, that party must formally notify the appropriate authority and request a review of the court verdict through cassation or retrial procedures as prescribed by law.

Relevant Legal Provisions:

Point c, Clause 1, Article 192; Point g, Clause 1, Article 217; Clause 2, Article 327; Clause 1, Article 353 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015.

Keywords:

“Property divided by a legally effective judgment”; “Claim for property”; “Non-acceptance of new lawsuit”.

CASE DETAILS

1. In the Complaint dated July 18^th, 2011, the Amended Complaint dated June 16^th, 2015, and statements during the proceedings, the plaintiff, Mrs. Tô Thị M (represented by Mr. Nguyễn Anh D), presented:

The land at No. 12 G Street, Ward 5, T City, including the disputed house and land at No. 12A G Street, originally belonged to Mrs. M’s parents, Mr. Tô Duy H1 and Mrs. Trần Thị Đ1. They were granted a house ownership certificate No. 6015/NĐ-XD Q3,4 on December 18^th, 1989, by the Department of Construction of Lâm Đồng Province. The house is categorized as grade 2, rank 3, with 80% of its original structure intact. It features a tiled floor, brick walls, and a concrete roof. The overall size of the building is 437.9m², with the main usable space measuring 315.17m².

In 1973, Mr. H1 leased a portion of the residence to Mrs. Hoàng Thị N, located at No. 12A G Street. In 1975, when Mr. H1’s family demanded the return of the house, Mrs. N requested temporary accommodation until she could secure alternative housing. Following 1975, Mr. H1’s family ceased to receive rent payments from Mrs. N. In 1980, Mrs. N covertly permitted Mrs. Phạm Thị H to reside in the residence. Mr. M’s family lodged a complaint with the People’s Committee of Ward 5, T City. However, following a process of mediation, they ultimately consented to allow Mrs. H to remain in the residence until she secured alternative housing.

In 2003, Mrs. H officially declared and submitted an application for a certificate of house ownership and land use rights at the address No. 12A G Street, Ward 5, T City. The family of Mr. M persistently insisted on the return of the residence. In 2011, Mrs. H acquired a construction permit without the knowledge of Mr. M’s family.

Presently, the house ownership and land use rights certificate for No. 12A G Street, Ward 5, T City includes the names of Mrs. H and Mrs. Nguyễn Thị Đ. Consequently, Mrs. M initiated legal proceedings seeking a court order to compel Mrs. H and Mrs. Đ to relinquish ownership of the property located at No. 12A G Street, Ward 5, T City, and return it to Mr. M’s family.

2. The defendants, Mrs. Nguyễn Thị Đ and Mrs. Phạm Thị H, presented:

In 1994, Mrs. H and Mr. Nguyễn Ngọc C (Mrs. H’s husband) purchased the property located at No. 12A G Street, Ward 5, T City, from Mrs. Hoàng Thị N. They have been utilizing the property without any conflicts or disagreements. In 2002, Mrs. H and Mr. C had a divorce. As per the Appellate Marriage And Family Judgment No. 17/HNGĐ-PT dated September 24^th, 2002, issued by the People’s Court of Lâm Đồng Province, Mrs. Đ and Mrs. H were each awarded 50% ownership of the house.

This decision was made since Mrs. H and her husband bought the house together with Mrs. Đ, who is Mrs. H’s mother. On January 12^th, 2004, Mrs. H and Mrs. Đ received a certificate granting them ownership of the house and rights to utilize the property located at No. 12A G Street, Ward 5, T City.

In March 2011, Mrs. H acquired a permit to reconstruct the house as a result of its significant deterioration. During the process of reconstruction, Mrs. H engaged in a conversation with Mrs. M regarding the removal of a wall that had been constructed by Mr. M’s family, which extended onto Mrs. H’s property. However, Mrs. M expressed disagreement and insisted on the return of the house. Mrs. H and Mrs. Đ claimed that they legally acquired the property located at No. 12A G Street, Ward 5, T City, from Mrs. N. They possess the house ownership and land use rights certificate, and therefore, they do not agree with Mrs. M’s complaint.

In the Decision to Suspend the Resolution of the First-Instance Civil Case and Return the Complaint No. 03/2016/QĐST-DS dated August 1^st, 2016, the People’s Court of Lâm Đồng Province decided:

To suspend the case and return the complaint in the first-instance civil case No. 03/2012/TLDS-ST dated April 17^th, 2012, regarding the “Claim for Property” case between the plaintiff, Mrs. Tô Thị M, and the defendants, Mrs. Nguyễn Thị Đ and Mrs. Phạm Thị H.

The first-instance court also ruled on the court fees and the right to appeal in accordance with the law.

Following the first-instance trial, on August 18^th, 2016, Mr. Nguyễn Anh D, the authorized representative of the plaintiff, filed an appeal disagreeing with the aforementioned first-instance decision.

In the Decision on Appeal Resolution of the Case Suspension No. 91/2017/QĐDS-PT dated May 30^th, 2017, the High People’s Court in Hồ Chí Minh City decided:

To accept the appeal of the plaintiff and the interested parties, including: Ms. Tô Thị S1, Mr. Tô Duy T, Mr. Tô Duy S, Ms. Tô Thị Kim N1, Ms. Tô Thị T1, Ms. Tô Thị S2, Mr. Tô Duy E, Mr. Tô Duy P1, Ms. Tô Thị H2, Ms. Tô Thị H3, Ms. Tô Thị Ngọc L, Mr. Tô Duy P2, Mr. Tô Duy Lâm S3, Ms. Tô Thị Ngọc H4, Mr. Tô Duy H5, Ms. Tô Thị Ngọc V, Mr. Tô Duy H6 (represented by Mr. Nguyễn Anh D).

To vacate the Decision to Suspend the Resolution of the Civil Case No. 03/2016/QĐST-DS dated August 1^st, 2016, of the People’s Court of Lâm Đồng Province; To remand the case file to the People’s Court of Lâm Đồng Province for continued resolution.

The appellate court also ruled on court fees.

On September 1^st, 2017, Judge Bùi Hữu Nhân, the presiding judge of the first-instance trial, filed a petition requesting the Supreme People’s Court to review the aforementioned appellate decision through cassation procedures.

In Decision No. 49/2019/KN-DS dated July 31^st, 2019, the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court protested the Decision on Appeal Resolution of the Case Suspension No. 91/2017/QĐDS-PT dated May 30^th, 2017, of the High People’s Court in Hồ Chí Minh City; requesting the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court to conduct the cassation trial, vacate the aforementioned appellate decision, and maintain the Decision to Suspend the Resolution of the Civil Case No. 03/2016/QĐST-DS dated August 1^st, 2016, of the People’s Court of Lâm Đồng Province, and return the complaint.

At the cassation hearing, the representative of the Supreme People’s Procuracy concurred with the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court’s protest decision.

COURT’S OPINION:

[1] According to the case file, Mrs. Tô Thị M initiated a legal action asserting ownership of the property located at No. 12A, G Street, Ward 5, T City, which she claimed belonged to Mr. Tô Duy H1 and Mrs. Trần Thị Đ1. She requested the court to order Mrs. Phạm Thị H and Mrs. Nguyễn Thị Đ to restore the property to her.

[2] According to point c, clause 1, Article 192 of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code, one of the cases in which the court returns the complaint is: “The case has been resolved by a legally effective court judgment or decision, or a decision that has taken effect by a competent state agency, except for cases where the court rejected the request for divorce, the request for change of child custody, the request for change of alimony, compensation for damages,

change of property manager, change of inheritance manager, change of guardian, or the case of claiming assets, rented assets, loaned assets, claiming houses, claiming land use rights for rent, for loan, for stay, which the court has not accepted and according to the law, can refile the lawsuit”.

The case file contains documents that state the following: In the Appellate Marriage And Family Judgment No. 17/HNGĐ-PT dated September 24, 2002, the People’s Court of Lâm Đồng Province determined that Ms. Phạm Thị H has the right to own half of the house, which has an area of 40.73m², and Ms. Nguyễn Thị Đ has the right to own the other half of the house, which also has an area of 40.73m². The house is located at No. 12A, G Street, Ward 5, T City.

Therefore, Ms. M’s legal action asserting that the property located at No. 12A, G Street, Ward 5, T City, was owned by Mr. H1 and Mrs. Đ1 was supported by a legitimate ruling affirming that the ownership of said property belonged to Mrs. Đ and Mrs. H.

Article 256 of the 2005 Civil Code stipulates: “The owner, the lawful possessor of a property has the right to demand that anyone who is in possession or using the property without legal grounds shall return it“.

Therefore, based on the information provided in Appellate Marriage And Family Judgment No. 17/HNGĐ-PT, Mrs. M does not have the legal entitlement to request that Mrs. Đ and Mrs. H give up the property located at No. 12A, G Street, Ward 5, T City. Hence, the substance of Ms. M’s lawsuit should be regarded as “The case has been settled by a legally binding court ruling or decision”; if Ms. M disagrees with the Appellate Marriage And Family Judgment No. 17/HNGĐ-PT, she ought to petition the appropriate court to review that judgment through either cassation (if the time limit has not expired) or retrial (if there are valid reasons).

Hence, on August 1st, 2016, the People’s Court of Lâm Đồng Province issued Decision No. 03/2016/QĐST-DS to halt the resolution of the case and send back Ms. M’s complaint, which aligns with point c, clause 1, Article 192 and point g, clause 1, Article 217 of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code.

The High People’s Court in Hồ Chí Minh City made a decision on May 30th, 2017 (Decision No. 91/2017/QĐDS-PT) to overturn Decision No. 03/2016/QĐST-DS dated August 1st, 2016. The reason for this was that the court believed the dispute in this case, which was considered a “Claim for Property,” involved different plaintiffs and defendants from those in the marriage and family case that was reviewed by the People’s Court of Lâm Đồng Province in the Appellate Marriage And Family Judgment No. 17/HNGĐ-PT dated September 24th, 2002. This belief was determined to be incorrect.

In light of the foregoing,

IT IS DECIDED:

Pursuant to Clause 2, Article 337; Clause 2, Article 343; and Article 344 of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code:

1. To accept the Cassation Decision No. 49/2019/KN-DS dated July 31^st, 2019, of the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court.
2. To vacatethe Decision on Appeal Resolution of the Case Suspension No. 91/2017/QĐDS-PT dated May 30^th, 2017, of the High People’s Court in Hồ Chí MinhCity concerning the case “Claim for Property” between the plaintiff Mrs. Tô Thị M and the defendants Mrs. Nguyễn Thị Đ, Mrs. Phạm Thị H, and other interested parties.
3. To uphold the Decision to Suspend the Resolution of the Civil Case and Return the ComplaintNo. 03/2016/QĐST-DS dated August 1^st, 2016, of the People’s Court of Lâm Đồng Province.

CONTENT OF THE CASE LAW:

“[2] … The case file contains documents that state the following: In the Appellate Marriage And Family Judgment No. 17/HNGĐ-PT dated September 24, 2002, the People’s Court of Lâm Đồng Province determined that Ms. Phạm Thị H has the right to own half of the house, which has an area of 40.73m², and Ms. Nguyễn Thị Đ has the right to own the other half of the house, which also has an area of 40.73m².

The house is located at No. 12A, G Street, Ward 5, T City. Therefore, Ms. M’s legal action asserting that the property located at No. 12A, G Street, Ward 5, T City, was owned by Mr. H1 and Mrs. Đ1 was supported by a legitimate ruling affirming that the ownership of said property belonged to Mrs. Đ and Mrs. H.

Article 256 of the 2005 Civil Code stipulates: “The owner, the lawful possessor of a property has the right to demand that anyone who is in possession or using the property without legal grounds shall return it“.

Therefore, based on the information provided in Appellate Marriage And Family Judgment No. 17/HNGĐ-PT, Mrs. M does not have the legal entitlement to request that Mrs. Đ and Mrs. H give up the property located at No. 12A, G Street, Ward 5, T City. Hence, the substance of Ms. M’s lawsuit should be regarded as “The case has been settled by a legally binding court ruling or decision”; if Ms. M disagrees with the Appellate Marriage And Family Judgment No. 17/HNGĐ-PT, she ought to petition the appropriate court to review that judgment through either cassation (if the time limit has not expired) or retrial (if there are valid reasons).

Hence, on August 1st, 2016, the People’s Court of Lâm Đồng Province issued Decision No. 03/2016/QĐST-DS to halt the resolution of the case and send back Ms. M’s complaint, which aligns with point c, clause 1, Article 192 and point g, clause 1, Article 217 of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code.

The High People’s Court in Hồ Chí Minh City made a decision on May 30th, 2017 (Decision No. 91/2017/QĐDS-PT) to overturn Decision No. 03/2016/QĐST-DS dated August 1st, 2016. The reason for this was that the court believed the dispute in this case, which was considered a “Claim for Property,” involved different plaintiffs and defendants from those in the marriage and family case that was reviewed by the People’s Court of Lâm Đồng Province in the Appellate Marriage And Family Judgment No. 17/HNGĐ-PT dated September 24th, 2002. This belief was determined to be 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.