CASE LAW NO. 50/2021/AL On the right of the person awarded the property under a legally effective judgment or decision to file a lawsuit to reclaim the property (Please note that this image is not related to the specific case being discussed).

CASE LAW NO. 50/2021/AL

On the right of the person awarded the property under a legally effective judgment or decision to file a lawsuit to reclaim the property

Approved by the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court on November 25^th, 2021, and published under Decision No. 594/QĐ-CA dated December 31^st, 2021, by the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court.

Source of the Case Law:

The Cassation Decision No. 481/2012/DS-GĐT dated September 25^th, 2012, of the Civil Court of the Supreme People’s Court regarding the case of “Dispute over reclaiming property” in Thừa Thiên Huế Province between the plaintiff, Mr. Nguyễn Văn N, and the defendant, Mrs. Nguyễn Thị T.

Location of the Case Law’s Content:

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

Summary of the Case Law:

– Case Background:

A court judgment or decision regarding property division exists and is legally enforceable. However, the entitled party did not request execution of the judgment and hasn’t received the property. Once the statute of limitations for enforcement expires, the awarded party seeks to reclaim the property through litigation.

– Legal Resolution:

In such circumstances, the court should acknowledge the awarded party’s right to file a lawsuit for property reclamation based on the existing and valid court judgment or decision.

Relevant Legal Provisions:

– Clauses 2 and 7 of Article 25 of the Civil Procedure Code 2004, amended and supplemented in 2011 (corresponding to Clauses 2 and 9 of Article 26 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015);

– Article 256 of the Civil Code 2005 (corresponding to Article 166 of the Civil Code 2015);

– Clause 6 of Article 105 of the Land Law 2003 (corresponding to Clause 7 of Article 166 of the Land Law 2013).

Keywords:

“Judgment or decision has legally resolved the division of property”; “Expired statute of limitations for requesting enforcement”; “Right to file a lawsuit to reclaim property”.

CASE DETAILS

In the complaint dated January 4^th, 2005, the plaintiff, Mr. Nguyễn Văn N, stated the following: 

He and Ms. Nguyễn Thị T were lawfully married in 1963. During the marriage, they jointly owned a residence situated on a plot of land in Village B, Commune X (currently designated as house No. 04, H Street, Area A, Ward C, Huế City) encompassing an area of 1,490 square meters. In 1968, Mr. N relocated to the North. Upon his return home in 1975, he discovered that Mrs. T had remarried during his absence. Consequently, they filed for divorce.

By way of Appellate Civil Judgment No. 43/DSPT dated May 13^th, 1977, the People’s Court of Bình Trị Thiên Province formally dissolved the marriage between Mr. N and Mrs. T. Furthermore, the judgment awarded Mr. N the right to utilize a specific portion of the land containing the graves of his father. A court-ordered boundary division drawing was attached to the judgment for clarity. 

Following the finalization of the judgment, Mr. N fulfilled his legal obligation to financially support their children. Additionally, the relevant authorities divided the land in accordance with the court-approved boundary demarcation. 

In 2001, Mr. N returned with the intention of constructing a residence for ancestral worship purposes. However, Mrs. T obstructed his efforts, prompting him to initiate this lawsuit. Mr. N seeks the following relief: Court order compelling Mrs. T to return the land use rights awarded to him by the aforementioned judgment and the restoration of the property boundaries as originally established in the judgment.

The defendant, Mrs. Nguyễn Thị T, stated the following:

She acknowledges the marriage to Mr. N and the subsequent divorce finalized by Judgment No. 43 dated May 13, 1977. She confirms Mr. N’s relocation to the North in 1968. However, Mrs. T maintains that she received a death notification for Mr. N in 1969, which prompted her to remarry. She further contends that Mr. N failed to request enforcement of the judgment after its issuance. Therefore, Mrs. T disputes the return of the land, claiming ownership based on her father’s inheritance.

In the First-instance Civil Judgment No. 08/2006/DSST dated June 21^st, 2006, the People’s Court of Huế City, Thừa Thiên Huế Province decided:

To accept Mr. Nguyễn Văn N’s request, compelling Mrs. Nguyễn Thị T to relinquish the land use rights for an area of 452.85 square meters (with sides of 37.5; 38.55; 36.14) as property established under Judgment No. 43/DSPT dated May 13^th, 1977, which included the grave of Mr. N’s father in plot No. 42, cadastral map No. 28, with an area of 1,997.06 square meters at house No. 04, H Street, Area A, Ward C, Huế City (the location of Mr. N’s plot has an attached drawing).

Additionally, the first-instance court ruled on court fees and the litigants’ right to appeal.

After the first-instance trial, Mrs. T appealed.

In the Appellate Civil Judgment No. 55/2006/DSPT dated December 11^th, 2006, the People’s Court of Thừa Thiên Huế Province decided:

To vacate the entire First-instance Civil Judgment No. 08/2006/DSST dated June 21^st, 2006, of the People’s Court of Huế City, Thừa Thiên Huế Province, regarding the dispute over land use rights between the plaintiff, Mr. Nguyễn Văn N, and the defendant, Mrs. Nguyễn Thị T. To dismiss the case. To return the complaint to Mr. Nguyễn Văn N. Additionally, the appellate court ruled on court fees.

After the appellate trial, Mr. N filed a complaint.

In the Appeal Decision No. 708/2009/KN-DS dated December 10^th, 2009, the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court appealed against the Appellate Civil Judgment No. 55/2006/DSPT dated December 11^th, 2006, of the People’s Court of Thừa Thiên Huế Province, with the following remarks:

Mr. N’s land use rights had been determined by the Appellate Judgment No. 43/DSPT dated May 13^th, 1977. Mr. N had the right to file a new civil lawsuit to reclaim the property. The appellate court’s determination that Mr. N lacked legal standing to sue and the subsequent return of the petition were deemed unreasonable.

Recommendation to the Civil Court of the Supreme People’s Court:

To conduct a cassation trial and vacate the aforementioned Appellate Civil Judgment and the First-instance Civil Judgment No. 08/2006/DSST dated June 21^st, 2006, of the People’s Court of Huế City, Thừa Thiên Huế Province; to remand the case file to the People’s Court of Huế City, Thừa Thiên Huế Province for a new first-instance trial in accordance with the law.

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

COURT’S OPINION:

[1] A review of the case file reveals that Mr. Nguyễn Văn N and Ms. Nguyễn Thị T were united in marriage in 1963. During their marriage, the couple jointly owned a residence situated on a plot of land in Village B, Commune X (currently designated as house No. 04, H Street, Area A, Ward C, Huế City) encompassing an area of 1,490 square meters. In 1968, Mr. N relocated to the North. Upon his return home in 1975, he discovered that Mrs. T had remarried, ultimately leading to the dissolution of their marriage.

[2] The Appellate Judgment No. 43 dated May 13^th, 1977, issued by the People’s Court of Bình Trị Thiên Province, formally dissolved the marriage between Mr. N and Mrs. T. This judgment further addressed child support obligations and the division of marital property. Significantly, the judgment awarded Mr. N a designated portion of the land within the aforementioned plot. A diagram depicting the court-ordered property division was attached to the judgment for clarity.

Due to work obligations requiring him to reside far from home, Mr. N did not pursue immediate action regarding the land. In 2001, upon returning with the intention of constructing a residence for ancestral worship purposes, Mr. N encountered obstruction from Mrs. T. Disagreements arose concerning the property boundaries, and Mrs. T refused to relinquish the land in accordance with the judgment. Consequently, Mr. N initiated legal proceedings, seeking a court order compelling Mrs. T to return the land as per the legally binding Appellate Judgment.

[3] While Mrs. T acknowledges the judgment’s allocation of a specific land portion to Mr. N, she contends that Mr. N failed to request enforcement of the judgment. Therefore, Mrs. T argues that the appellate judgment, lacking execution, is no longer enforceable due to the expiration of the statutory limitations period. In essence, Mrs. T asserts that she has been managing and utilizing the entirety of the land, including the portion designated for Mr. N by the court.

[4] Appellate Judgment No. 43 dated May 13^th, 1977, issued by the People’s Court of Bình Trị Thiên Province, definitively established Mr. N’s land use rights over the disputed land. This judgment serves as the foundation for his claim. The current lawsuit focuses on reclaiming the property, a distinct legal concept from the original adjudication of land use ownership.

Had the statute of limitations for enforcement not expired, Mr. N could have pursued enforcement of the land transfer through the appropriate enforcement agency, referencing Judgment No. 43. However, due to the expiration of the limitations period, this avenue is no longer available.

Despite the expired enforcement window, Mr. N retains the right to file a new civil lawsuit for property reclamation. The court’s primary function in this case is not to re-adjudicate the established land use rights, but rather to determine whether Mr. N has demonstrably relinquished those rights. In the absence of such evidence, the court should accept Mr. N’s lawsuit and proceed accordingly.

[5] The appellate court’s determination that Mr. N lacked legal standing to sue and the subsequent return of his petition appear to be flawed. This decision fails to address the core issue of property reclamation. Furthermore, the courts have yet to conduct a comprehensive examination of the following: Mrs. T’s management and use of the disputed land since the original judgment; Mr. N’s tax payment history related to the land in question; the perspectives of relevant state authorities regarding the recognition of Mr. N’s land use rights under current legal interpretations.

[6] The first-instance court’s acceptance of Mr. N’s request to compel Mrs. T to return the land use rights for an area of 452.85 square meters, which included Mr. N’s father’s grave, established under judgment No. 43/DSPT dated May 13, 1977, without considering Mrs. T’s efforts in maintaining, improving the land and paying land taxes, was incorrect. The appellate court’s vacatur of the entire first-instance judgment of the People’s Court of Huế City, dismissal of the case, and return of the complaint to Mr. N was equally not in accordance with the law.

[7] Therefore, the appeal of the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court is well-founded and should be accepted.

[8] In light of the foregoing, pursuant to Clause 2, Article 291; Clause 3, Article 297; and Article 299 of the Civil Procedure Code 2004 (amended and supplemented in 2011),

IT IS DECIDED:

– To vacate the entire Appellate Civil Judgment No. 55/2006/DSPT dated December 11^th, 2006, of the People’s Court of Thừa Thiên Huế Province, and the entire First-instance Civil Judgment No. 08/2006/DSST dated June 21^st, 2006, of the People’s Court of Huế City, Thừa Thiên Huế Province, regarding the case “Dispute over reclaiming property” between the plaintiff, Mr. Nguyễn Văn N, and the defendant, Mrs. Nguyễn Thị T.

– To remand the case file to the People’s Court of Huế City, Thừa Thiên Huế Province for a new first-instance trial in accordance with the law.

CONTENT OF THE CASE LAW:

“[4] Appellate Judgment No. 43 dated May 13^th, 1977, issued by the People’s Court of Bình Trị Thiên Province, definitively established Mr. N’s land use rights over the disputed land. This judgment serves as the foundation for his claim. The current lawsuit focuses on reclaiming the property, a distinct legal concept from the original adjudication of land use ownership.

Had the statute of limitations for enforcement not expired, Mr. N could have pursued enforcement of the land transfer through the appropriate enforcement agency, referencing Judgment No. 43. However, due to the expiration of the limitations period, this avenue is no longer available.

Despite the expired enforcement window, Mr. N retains the right to file a new civil lawsuit for property reclamation. The court’s primary function in this case is not to re-adjudicate the established land use rights, but rather to determine whether Mr. N has demonstrably relinquished those rights. In the absence of such evidence, the court should accept Mr. N’s lawsuit and proceed accordingly.”

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

You can also download the .docx version here.