CASE LAW NO. 15/2017/AL On the Recognition of Oral Agreements Between Parties Concerning the Conversion of Agricultural Land Use Rights

CASE LAW NO. 15/2017/AL

On the Recognition of Oral Agreements Between Parties Concerning the Conversion of Agricultural Land Use Rights (Land Exchange)

Approved by the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court on December 14^th, 2017, and published under Decision No. 299/QD-CA dated December 28^th, 2017, by the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court.

Source of the Case Law:

Cassation Decision No. 394/2012/DS-GĐT dated August 23^rd, 2012, of the Civil Court of the Supreme People’s Court regarding the case “Land Exchange Contract Dispute” in Hà Nội City between the plaintiff, Ms. Trịnh Thị C, and the defendant, Mr. Nguyễn Minh T; with interested parties including Ms. Vũ Thị P, Mr. Nguyễn Minh Tr, Ms. Bùi Thanh H, Ms. Trương Thị X, Mr. Trương Sỹ K, Ms. Trương Hồng T, Ms. Trương Thị H1, Mr. Trương Anh T, Ms. Trương Thúy N, Mr. Trương Quang K, and Ms. Trương Thị H2.

Location of the Case Law’s Content:

Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the “Court’s Opinion” section.

Summary of the Case Law:

– Case Background:

Prior to October 15^th, 1993 (the effective date of the 1993 Law on Land), the parties entered into a verbal agreement to exchange agricultural land use rights. They subsequently registered and declared the exchanged land area, which was duly recorded in the Land Registry. Additionally, they have continuously and peacefully cultivated and utilized the land for an extended period.

– Legal Resolution:

In light of these facts, the Court must acknowledge the validity of the parties’ oral agreement regarding the exchange of agricultural land use rights, thereby confirming their respective rights to utilize the exchanged land area.

Relevant Legal Provisions:

– Clause 2, Article 16 of the 1987 Law on Land.

– Clause 2, Article 170 of the 2005 Civil Code.

Keywords:

“Conversion of agricultural land use rights”; “Actual conversion of land use rights”; “Recognition of land use rights”.

CASE DETAILS

According to the complaint dated May 2^nd, 2006, and other statements during the case proceeding, the plaintiff, Ms. Trịnh Thị C, stated:

In 1962, Ms. Trịnh Thị C’s family was allocated 517m² of 5% agricultural land, Plot No. 28, Map Sheet No. 4, in Area K for cultivation. This land was adjacent to the house of Mr. Nguyễn Minh T (the defendant). According to the 1987 map, this land was belonged to two plots, 158 and 159. In early 1992, Mr. Nguyễn Minh T’s family proposed temporarily exchanging their 5% land for a 540m² plot in area B, which was allocated under Resolution No. 10/1988 of the Politburo, to Mr. Nguyễn Minh T’s family for easier cultivation.

The parties entered into an informal oral agreement to temporarily exchange land use rights, with the understanding that either party could terminate the exchange with one week’s notice. In 1994, due to production needs, Ms. Trịnh Thị C’s family requested the return of their land, but Mr. Nguyễn Minh T’s family refused. Despite Ms. Trịnh Thị C’s appeals to local and district authorities, the dispute remained unresolved. As a result, Ms. Trịnh Thị C sought legal recourse, requesting the Court to compel Mr. Nguyễn Minh T’s family to return the land in accordance with the law.

The defendant, Mr. Nguyễn Minh T, stated:

Under the Resolution No.10’s policy, the Cooperative Đ allocated land to households in early 1991. During this process, the Cooperative guided households to exchange land with each other. Around February 1992, Mr. Nguyễn Minh T’s family and Ms. Trịnh Thị C’s family orally agreed to exchange land as stated by the plaintiff.

After the exchange, Mr. Nguyễn Minh T transformed the land into a pond and relocated over ten graves to the village cemetery. In May 1994, a directive was issued for households to declare cultivated land for tax registry purposes, in accordance with the 1993 Law on Land.

At that time, Ms. Trịnh Thị C declared the exchanged land in Area B, while Mr. Nguyễn Minh T declared the exchanged land from Ms. Trịnh Thị C along with his family’s land. By the end of 1994, Cooperative Đ issued a document allocating land to households, recording that Mr. Nguyễn Minh T and Ms. Trịnh Thị C exchanged land. Mr. Nguyễn Minh T’s family has been directly cultivating the land since 1992. Therefore, Mr. Nguyễn Minh T did not accept the plaintiff’s request to revert the land exchange.

An interested party, Ms. Trương Thị H2, stated: The origin of the land in Area K was from her parents in 1962. After her father’s death, the land was registered under her brother, Mr. A. In 1990 and 1991, 100m² were allocated to her. The exchange of the entire land by Ms. Trịnh Thị C to Mr. Nguyễn Minh T was incorrect, and she now demands its return.

First Instance Judgment No. 17/2008/DSST dated August 20^th, 2008, Hoàng Mai District People’s Court decided:

“1. Declare the oral agreement for exchanging agricultural land between 5% land and Resolution No. 10 land, established between Ms. Trịnh Thị C’s household and Mr. Nguyễn Minh T’s household in February 1992, null and void.

Compel Mr. Nguyễn Minh T’s household to return 517m² of 5% land, Plot No. 28, Map Sheet No. 4, per the 1990 Cadastral Map in Area K, now Sector 33, Ward L, District M, Hà Nội.

Compel Ms. Trịnh Thị C’s household to return 540m² of Resolution No. 10 land, part of Plot No. 80, Map Sheet No. 42-A2 (shortened to Sheet No. 2) per the 1994 Cadastral Map In Area B, Ward L, District M, Hà Nội.

2. Compel Ms. Trịnh Thị C to pay land improvement costs, including pond excavation, land elevation, crops, and grave relocation costs totaling VND 112,817,000 (one hundred twelve million eight hundred seventeen thousand dong) to Mr. Nguyễn Minh T.
3. Compel Mr. Nguyễn Minh Tr and Ms. Bùi Thanh H to dismantle the 75.28m²crude house built on the 517m²Plot No. 28, Map Sheet No. 4, per the 1990 Cadastral Map to return the land to Ms. Trịnh Thị C’s household. Mr. Nguyễn Minh Tr and Ms. Bùi Thanh H will not be compensated for the dismantled house.”

Mr. Nguyễn Minh T appealed the entire First-instance Judgment.

Appellate Judgment No. 111/2008/DSPT dated November 27^th, 2008, Hà Nội People’s Court ruled: to uphold the First-instance Judgment.

Additionally, the appellate court also ruled on court fees.

After the appellate trial, Mr. Nguyễn Minh T lodged a complaint against the above Appellate Civil Judgment.

Decision No. 482/2011/KN-DS dated August 2^nd, 2011, the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court appealed against the above Appellate Civil Judgment; requesting the Civil Court of the Supreme People’s Court to conduct a cassation trial to vacate the Appellate and First-instance Civil Judgments; and remand the case file to the Hoàng Mai District People’s Court for a retrial according to the law.

At today’s trial, the representative of the Supreme People’s Procuracy concurred with the appealed of the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court.

COURT’S OPINION:

[1] Upon review of the case file and deliberation, the Civil Trial Panel concurs with the appeal’s content, establishing that the land exchange between the parties was a voluntary agreement based on their agricultural needs. Following the exchange, both parties registered and declared the exchanged land, which was duly recorded in the Land Registry. They have continuously and peacefully cultivated and utilized the land since 1992. During this period, Mr. Nguyễn Minh T relocated graves on the land and converted a portion into a fish pond.

[2] Although the land exchange occurred in February 1992, evidence shows that registration and declaration of the exchanged land with local authorities, along with other procedures such as document exchange and tax declarations, commenced in 1994. In this instance, the land exchange should be recognized as a de facto occurrence, acknowledging the parties’ legitimate and proper use of the newly exchanged land. 

The first-instance and appellate courts erred in relying solely on Ms. Trịnh Thị C’s testimony, which characterized the land exchange as temporary. This led to their incorrect determination that the exchange was unlawful, resulting in the annulment of the transaction and the disruptive order for both parties to dismantle the house and return the land. This decision was inaccurate and unnecessarily interfered with the parties’ established land use.

In light of the foregoing;

Pursuant to Clause 2, Article 291; Clause 3, Article 297; and Article 299 of the Civil Procedure Code;

DECISION:

Vacate the entire Appellate Civil Judgment No. 111/2008/DSPT dated November 27^th, 2008, of the Hà Nội People’s Court and vacate the First-Instance Civil Judgment No. 17/2008/DSST dated August 20^th, 2008, of the Hoàng Mai District People’s Court, Hà Nội, regarding the case “Land Exchange Contract Dispute” between the plaintiff, Ms. Trịnh Thị C, and the defendant, Mr. Nguyễn Minh T.

Remand the case file to the Hoàng Mai District People’s Court, Hà Nội, for a first-instance retrial in accordance with the law.

CONTENT OF THE CASE LAW:

“[1] Upon review of the case file and deliberation, the Civil Trial Panel concurs with the appeal’s content, establishing that the land exchange between the parties was a voluntary agreement based on their agricultural needs. Following the exchange, both parties registered and declared the exchanged land, which was duly recorded in the Land Registry. They have continuously and peacefully cultivated and utilized the land since 1992. During this period, Mr. Nguyễn Minh T relocated graves on the land and converted a portion into a fish pond.

[2] Although the land exchange occurred in February 1992, evidence shows that registration and declaration of the exchanged land with local authorities, along with other procedures such as document exchange and tax declarations, commenced in 1994. In this instance, the land exchange should be recognized as a de facto occurrence, acknowledging the parties’ legitimate and proper use of the newly exchanged land. 

The first-instance and appellate courts erred in relying solely on Ms. Trịnh Thị C’s testimony, which characterized the land exchange as temporary. This led to their incorrect determination that the exchange was unlawful, resulting in the annulment of the transaction and the disruptive order for both parties to dismantle the house and return the land. This decision was inaccurate and unnecessarily interfered with the parties’ established land use.”

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

You can also download the .docx version here.