Case Law No. 32/2020/AL On Reclaimed Land, Emigration, and Subsequent Long-Term Land Use by Another Party (Please note that this image is not related to the specific case being discussed).

CASE LAW NO. 32/2020/AL

On the situation where the reclaimed land was owned by one party who then emigrated and resided abroad, after that the land was managed and used by another party continuously and without interruption for an extended period

Approved by the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court on February 5^th, 2020, and published under Decision No. 50/QĐ-CA on February 25^th, 2020, by the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court.

Source of the Case Law:

The Cassation Decision No. 19/2019/DS-GĐT dated August 20^th, 2019, by the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court concerning the case of “Land Use Rights Dispute” in Bạc Liêu Province, between the plaintiff, Mrs. Lý Kim S, and the defendant, Mr. Trần Văn N; with interested parties including 16 individuals.

Location of the Case Law’s Content:

Paragraph 1 of the “Court’s Opinion” section.

Summary of the Case Law:

– Case Background:

An individual reclaimed a parcel of land and subsequently emigrated abroad. Another individual then took possession of the land, managing and using it continuously and without interruption for an extended period. During this period of possession, the second individual made improvements to the land, constructed a permanent dwelling, registered and declared their occupancy, and was granted a certificate of land use rights.

– Legal Resolution:

Based on the aforementioned facts, the court must determine that the individual who initially reclaimed the land no longer holds valid land use rights. Therefore, any claim to reinstate those rights is without legal basis.

Relevant Legal Provisions:

– Clause 2, Article 10; Clause 1, Clause 4, Article 50 of the 2003 Land Law (corresponding to Clause 5, Article 26; Clause 1, Clause 4, Article 100 of the 2013 Land Law);

– Clause 1, Article 164; Article 176; Clause 2, Article 177; Articles 192, 196, 201 of the 1995 Civil Code (corresponding to Clause 1, Article 155; Article 170; Clause 2, Article 171; Articles 185, 190, 195 of the 2005 Civil Code; Clause 1, Article 150; Article 221; Clause 2, Article 237; Articles 187, 182, 192 of the 2015 Civil Code).

Keywords:

“Claim for land use rights”; “Land reclaimed by an individual”; “Resided abroad”; “Another person managed and used land”; “Stable and long-term land use”; “Granted land use rights certificate”.

CASE DETAILS

In the lawsuit filed on September 18^th, 2012, and during the case proceedings, the plaintiff, Mrs. Lý Kim S, represented by authorization Ms. Trần Thị Phượng L1, presented:

In 1958, Mrs. S’s parents, Mr. Lý Mã C and Mrs. Trần Thị K, reclaimed approximately 50,450m² of agricultural land, now identified as plot No. 135 with an area of 47,250m², and plot No. 138 with an area of 3,200m² in Hamlet X, Commune N, District H, Bạc Liêu Province. In 1971, Mr. and Mrs. K transferred the management and use of this land to their son, Mr. Lý Kim Q. In 1978, Mr. Q leased the land to Mr. Trần Văn C1 (Mrs. K’s younger brother) without formal documentation, and Mr. C1 did not pay rent (with some testimonies indicating that Mr. and Mrs. K leased the land to Mr. C1 in 1971).

In 1997, Mr. C1 self-declared and was granted a land use rights certificate for 47,250m², plot No. 135. However, Mr. C1 also signed a “Land Ownership Confirmation” on May 30^th, 2004, acknowledging that he borrowed the land from Mr. and Mrs. K.

When Mrs. S intended to relocate the graves of Mr. and Mrs. K to this land, Mr. Trần Văn N (the current land user) objected. Therefore, the children of Mr. and Mrs. K, namely Mrs. Lý Kim S, Mr. Lý Kim Q, Mr. Lý Kim S1, and Ms. Lý Kim H, unanimously authorized Mrs. S to file a lawsuit requesting Mr. N to return the entire 50,450m² of land. At the first-instance trial, Ms. L1 (authorized representative of Mrs. S) withdrew part of the claim, only requesting Mr. N to return the actual measured area of 30,674.7m² of plot No. 135 and to receive compensation for the 3,184m² of land in plot No. 135 expropriated by the State.

The defendant, Mr. Trần Văn N, stated:

The origin of the disputed land is that Mr. Trần Văn C1 (his father) used it before 1975 and was granted a land use rights certificate in 1997. Subsequently, Mr. C1 completed the procedure to gift this land to him; he was granted a land use rights certificate in 2009 and has directly managed and used this land since then.

Regarding the Confirmation dated May 30^th, 2004, provided by Mrs. S, he asserted that the signature on the document was not that of Mr. C1, but he did not request an examination. During the land use period, the State expropriated part of the land for road construction. His family has stably used the land before 1975 and was granted a land use rights certificate, so he did not regconize the request from the children of Mr. and Mrs. K.

Interested Parties:

Mrs. Võ Thị B stated: Around 1970-1971, when she lived with Mr. C1, he was already cultivating and using the disputed land. Mr. C1 mentioned that the land was leased from Mr. and Mrs. K, and when the K family emigrated to the United States, they transferred the land to Mr. C1. During his use, Mr. C1 registered, declared, and was granted a land use rights certificate in 1997; in 2009, Mr. C1 completed the procedure to gift the land to Mr. N. She disagreed with returning the disputed land to the children of Mr. and Mrs. K.

Mr./Ms. Trần Thị D, Trần Thị Đ, Trần Thị T, and Trần Văn Q1 stated:

Mr. Trần Văn C1 (deceased in 2009) and Mrs. Đặng Thị V (date of death unknown) had four children: Mr./Ms. Trần Thị D, Trần Thị Đ, Trần Thị T, and Trần Văn Q1. After Ms. V’s death, Mr. C1 lived with Mrs. Võ Thị B and had seven children: Mr./Ms. Trần Văn H1, Trần Thị Cẩm H2, Trần Văn L, Trần Văn N1, Trần Thị M, Trần Thị G, and Trần Văn N. The disputed land originally belonged to Mr. C and Mrs. K.

Due to financial difficulties, Mr. C1 borrowed the disputed land from Mr. and Mrs. K without any formal documentation. When the K family emigrated, Mr. C1 self-declared, registered, and was granted a land use rights certificate. Upon discovering this, Mr. C1 wrote a letter acknowledging that the land he registered in his name was borrowed from Mr. and Mrs. K. They agreed with Mrs. S’s claim.

Mr./Ms. Trần Văn H1, Trần Thị Cẩm H2, Trần Văn L, Trần Văn N1, Trần Thị M, and Trần Thị G stated:

They did not know the origin of the disputed land but noted that Mr. C1 (their father) had been cultivating it since they were born. In 1997, Mr. C1 was granted a land use rights certificate, and in 2009, he gifted the land to Mr. N, who was subsequently granted a land use rights certificate. They did not agree with Mrs. S’s claim.

At the First-Instance Civil Judgment No. 05/2015/DS-ST dated July 15^th, 2015, the People’s Court of Bạc Liêu Province decided:

To accept part of Mrs. Lý Kim S’s claim against Mr. Trần Văn N. Mr. Trần Văn N was required to compensate Mrs. Lý Kim S, Mr. Lý Kim Q, Mr. Lý Kim S1, and Ms. Lý Kim H for the land area of 30,674.7m² in plot No. 135, map No. 09 in Hamlet X, Commune N, District H, Bạc Liêu Province, with a total amount of VND 788,389,547.

Mrs. Lý Kim S, Mr. Lý Kim Q, Mr. Lý Kim S1, and Ms. Lý Kim H were responsible for contacting the Basic Construction Investment Project Management Board of District H to receive compensation for the expropriated land area of 3,184m² amounting to VND 636,800,000.

Recognition and Assignment:

Mr. Trần Văn N was granted the right to manage and use the land area of 30,674.7m² in plot No. 135, map No. 09 in Hamlet X, Commune N, District H, Bạc Liêu Province, with the specific locations as follows:

– Parcel I: Area of 757.7m² with the following boundaries: East borders Mr. Trương Thanh H’s land (26.3m); West borders the 14000 canal and Cái Chanh River (00m); South borders the 14000 canal (66m); North borders Cái Chanh River (57.9m).

– Parcel II: Area of 6,892m² (excluding the scope of clearance and the road corridor V) with the following boundaries: East borders Mr. Trương Thanh H’s land (129.5m); West borders the irrigation canal (180.1m); South borders Ms. Trương Thị H’s land (63.9m); North borders the 14000 canal (50.8m).

– Parcel III: Area of 23,025m² (excluding the scope of clearance and the road corridor V) with the following boundaries: East borders the irrigation canal (217.1m); West borders Mr. Trương Văn T’s land (232.7m); South borders Mr. Trương Văn N2’s land (91.1m); North borders the 14000 canal and Mr. Trương Văn T’s land (162.3m).

Land cadastral extracts for the above parcels are attached to the Judgment and form an integral part of the Judgment.

After the first-instance trial, Mr. Trần Văn N and Mr. Trần Văn L appealed.

At the Appellate Civil Judgment No. 210/2016/DS-PT dated September 8^th, 2016, the High People’s Court in Hồ Chí Minh City decided:

To amend the First-Instance Judgment, recognizing the agreement between Ms. Trần Thị Phượng L1 (representative of Mrs. Lý Kim S, Mr. Lý Kim Q, Mr. Lý Kim S1, and Ms. Lý Kim H) and Mr. Trần Văn N as follows:

– Mr. Trần Văn N is granted the right to manage and use the land area of 30,674.7m² in plot No. 135, map No. 09 in Hamlet X, Commune N, District H, Bạc Liêu Province, with the specific locations as follows:

  – Parcel I: Area of 757.7m² with the following boundaries: East borders Mr. Trương Thanh H’s land (26.3m); West borders the 14000 canal and Cái Chanh River (00m); South borders the 14000 canal (66m); North borders Cái Chanh River (57.9m).

  – Parcel II: Area of 6,892m² (excluding the scope of clearance and the road corridor V) with the following boundaries: East borders Mr. Trương Thanh H’s land (129.5m); West borders the irrigation canal (180.1m); South borders Ms. Trương Thị H’s land (63.9m); North borders the 14000 canal (50.8m).

  – Parcel III: Area of 23,025m² (excluding the scope of clearance and the road corridor V) with the following boundaries: East borders the irrigation canal (217.1m); West borders Mr. Trương Văn T’s land (232.7m); South borders Mr. Trương Văn N2’s land (91.1m); North borders the 14000 canal and Mr. Trương Văn T’s land (162.3m).

Land cadastral extracts for the above parcels are attached to the Judgment and form an integral part of the Judgment.

– Mrs. Lý Kim S, Mr. Lý Kim Q, Mr. Lý Kim S1, and Ms. Lý Kim H, represented by Ms. Trần Thị Phượng L1, are entitled to contact the Basic Construction Investment Project Management Board of District H to receive compensation for the expropriated land area of 3,184m² amounting to VND 636,800,000.

– Mr. Trần Văn N is responsible for paying Mrs. Lý Kim S, Mr. Lý Kim Q, Mr. Lý Kim S1, and Ms. Lý Kim H, represented by Ms. Trần Thị Phượng L1, a total amount of VND 72,246,970.

After the appellate trial:

Mr. Trần Văn N filed a petition for cassation review of the above Appellate Civil Judgment.

At the Cassation Decision No. 33/2019/KN-DS dated June 18^th, 2019, the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court protested against the Appellate Civil Judgment No. 210/2016/DS-PT dated September 8^th, 2016, of the High People’s Court in Hồ Chí Minh City, requesting the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court to conduct a cassation review to vacate the aforementioned Appellate Civil Judgment and the First-Instance Civil Judgment No. 05/2015/DS-ST dated July 15^th, 2015, of the People’s Court of Bạc Liêu Province, and to remand the case file to the People’s Court of Bạc Liêu Province for first-instance retrial in accordance with the law.

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

COURT’S OPINION:

[1] The parcel of land designated as Plot No. 135 in Hamlet X, Commune N, District H, Bạc Liêu Province was originally cleared by Mr. and Mrs. K circa 1958. However, the family of Mr. C1 has maintained stable and continuous use of this land since at least 1975. During this period of usage, Mr. C1 registered, declared, and was granted a land use rights certificate in 1997. Subsequently, in 2009, Mr. C1 completed the legal procedures to gift the land to Mr. N, who was then issued a land use rights certificate.

Mr. and Mrs. K did not register, declare, or utilize the aforementioned land parcel and failed to possess any of the documents specified in Article 100 of the 2013 Land Law (formerly Article 50 of the 2003 Land Law). Additionally, the K family emigrated and settled in the United States, thereby lacking the requisite conditions for the State to recognize land use rights, allocate land, or lease land as per Articles 54, 55, 56, and 183 of the 2013 Land Law. Consequently, Mr. and Mrs. K did not possess valid legal land use rights for the disputed area. The acceptance of Mrs. S’s lawsuit by the first-instance court was therefore erroneous.

[2] During the appellate proceedings, the plaintiff and defendant reached a settlement wherein Mr. N was granted the right to use 30,674.7m² of land within plot No. 135, subject to the payment of one-half of the land use rights value for the aforementioned area and one-half of the State’s compensation (calculated after deducting VND 163,450,000 in support funds for the household residing on the land) resulting from the expropriation of 3,184m² of land.

Consequently, the appellate court ruled that Ms. L1 (representing Mrs. S, Mr. S1, Ms. H, and Mr. Q) was entitled to contact the Basic Construction Investment Project Management Board of District H to receive VND 636,800,000 in compensation for the expropriated land and VND 73,246,970 paid by Mr. N. Mr. N was granted the right to use the 30,674.7m² of land within plot No. 135.

However, according to cadastral extracts appended to the First-Instance and Appellate Judgments, a portion of the land granted to Mr. N falls within other land parcels: 813.7m² belongs to plot No. 545 (registered to Mr. Trương Văn N2), and 1,233.6m² belongs to plot No. 136 (under State management). The first-instance and appellate courts failed to include the land use right holders of these plots as interested parties in the proceedings, thereby compromising their rights and violating procedural due process as stipulated in Clause 4, Article 68 of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code.

In light of the foregoing,

IT IS DECIDED:

Pursuant to Point a, Clause 2, Article 337; Clause 3, Article 343; and Article 345 of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code:

1. To accept the Cassation Decision No. 33/2019/KN-DS dated June 18^th, 2019, of the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court.
2. To vacate the Appellate Civil Judgment No. 210/2016/DS-PT dated September 9^th, 2016, of the High People’s Court in Hồ Chí Minh City and the First-Instance Civil Judgment No. 05/2015/DS-ST dated July 15^th, 2015, of the People’s Court of Bạc Liêu Province regarding the “Land Use Rights Dispute” between the plaintiff Mrs. Lý Kim S and the defendant Mr. Trần Văn N and other interested parties.
3. To remand the case to the People’s Court of Bạc Liêu Province for  first-instance retrial, in accordance with the law.

CONTENT OF THE CASE LAW:

“[1] The parcel of land designated as Plot No. 135 in Hamlet X, Commune N, District H, Bạc Liêu Province was originally cleared by Mr. and Mrs. K circa 1958. However, the family of Mr. C1 has maintained stable and continuous use of this land since at least 1975. During this period of usage, Mr. C1 registered, declared, and was granted a land use rights certificate in 1997. Subsequently, in 2009, Mr. C1 completed the legal procedures to gift the land to Mr. N, who was then issued a land use rights certificate.

Mr. and Mrs. K did not register, declare, or utilize the aforementioned land parcel and failed to possess any of the documents specified in Article 100 of the 2013 Land Law (formerly Article 50 of the 2003 Land Law). Additionally, the K family emigrated and settled in the United States, thereby lacking the requisite conditions for the State to recognize land use rights, allocate land, or lease land as per Articles 54, 55, 56, and 183 of the 2013 Land Law. Consequently, Mr. and Mrs. K did not possess valid legal land use rights for the disputed area. The acceptance of Mrs. S’s lawsuit by the first-instance court was therefore erroneous.”

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

You can also download the .docx version here.