CASE LAW DRAFT NO. 09/2024 On the jurisdiction of the Court in handling requests to annul individual decisions in civil cases (Please note that this image is not related to the specific case being discussed).

CASE LAW DRAFT NO. 09/2024

On the jurisdiction of the Court in handling requests to annul individual decisions in civil cases

Approved by the Judges’ Council of the Supreme People’s Court on [date] [month] 2024 and published under Decision No. [number]/QĐ-CA on [date] [month] 2024 by the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court.

Source of the Case Law:

The Cassation Decision No. 185/2023/DS-GĐT dated August 11^th, 2023, concerning the case of “Recovery of property as land use rights; recognition of land use rights; annulment of the Certificate of Land Use Rights” by the High People’s Court in Hồ Chí Minh City, between the plaintiff Mr. Nhịn Tắc Hùng D, Mrs. Võ Thị M and the defendant Mrs. Nguyễn Thị P, with interested parties including 6 people.

Location of the Case Law’s Content:

Paragraph 3 of the “Court’s Opinion” section.

Summary of the Case Law:

– Factual Background:

The District-level People’s Court heard a civil case regarding the dispute over the recovery of property as land use rights, which included a request to annul an individual decision made by a competent state agency. There was evidence to establish that this decision was issued in accordance with the law and did not infringe on the legal rights and interests of the litigants.

– Legal Resolution:

In this instance, the District-level People’s Court that is resolving the civil case should continue its proceedings.

Relevant Legal Provisions:

– Article 34 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015;

– Articles 31 and 32 of the Administrative Procedure Law 2015.

Keywords:

“Individual decision”; “Request to annul an individual decision”; “District-level People’s Court continues to resolve”.

CASE DETAILS

1. The Plaintiffs Mr. Nhịn Tắc Hùng D and Mrs. Võ Thị M, represented by Ms. Trần Thị L, presented the following:

In the matter concerning the 11,000m² land situated in Hamlet A, Commune B, District C, Đồng Nai Province, its origins trace back to Mr. Võ Văn T (deceased in 1979) and Mrs. Nguyễn Thị B1. The couple had five offspring: Võ Thị Đ, Võ Văn N (husband of Mrs. P), Võ Văn R, Võ Văn B, and Võ Thị M.

In 1984, Mrs. B1 allocated plots of 2,000m² to each child, except for Mr. N, who received 3,000m² based on her informal directive, although no formal documentation was produced. Due to Mrs. M and Mr. D’s distant occupations, the plot designated for Mrs. M remained unused.

In 2005, local authorities permitted residents of Commune B to concurrently register and declare their rights to land use certificates. Mrs. M’s siblings promptly registered their allocated portions, while Mrs. M’s family delayed their application and consequently secured only 1,170m², which they accepted.

Following a survey, Mrs. M and Mr. D’s plot was identified as Plot 77, Map Sheet 26, Commune B. On May 21^st, 2019, the People’s Committee of District C issued them Land Use Rights, House Ownership, and Other Assets Attached to Land Certificate No. CQ 908340.

During their absence due to work obligations, Mrs. Nguyễn Thị P planted acacia trees on the land and subsequently declined to relinquish it. Consequently, Mr. D and Mrs. M initiated legal proceedings seeking Mrs. Nguyễn Thị P’s restitution of the 1,170m² plot situated in Plot 77, Map Sheet 26, Commune B.

2. The Defendant, Mrs. Nguyễn Thị P, presented the following:

The disputed land’s origins date back to her parents-in-law in 1978, a period when mango, cashew, and bamboo trees already adorned the land. Initially, her parents-in-law informed her and her husband that they had been granted 4,000m², yet without specifying the exact boundaries, and no formal documents were created. Subsequently, her husband, Mr. Võ Văn N (N1), undertook the paperwork process, although the exact timing remains unclear to her.

Around 2019, she became aware that Mrs. M and Mr. D had obtained a land use rights certificate for 1,170m² in Plot 77, Map Sheet 26, Commune B, District C. She contends that this issuance was improper, asserting that Mrs. M and Mr. D did not qualify as long-term stable land users and that the land in question was under dispute.

She further argues that the issuance procedure for the Land Use Rights Certificate failed to meet necessary conditions, highlighting that the evaluation committee’s proposal lacked her signature as the adjacent user of Plot 77.

Consequently, she opposes Mrs. M and Mr. D’s lawsuit and has counterclaimed, seeking the annulment of Land Use Rights Certificate No. CH 25154 issued on May 21^st, 2019, by the People’s Committee of District C for Mrs. M and Mr. D. Additionally, she seeks recognition of her and her children’s (as heirs of Mr. N) rights to the 1,170m² land in Plot 77, Map Sheet 26, Commune B.

3. The Interested Parties:

3.1. The People’s Committee of District C presented the following:

On March 15^th, 2018, Mrs. M and Mr. D applied for a Land Use Rights Certificate for 1,170m² in Plot 77, Map Sheet 26, Commune B, District C, which was confirmed by the People’s Committee of Commune B on February 15^th, 2019 (accompanied by an extract and land map survey No. 14901/2017 prepared by the Land Use Rights Registration Office on December 22^nd, 2017; the boundary description and land plot map prepared by the Long Thành Branch of the Đồng Nai Land Registration Office on November 14^th, 2017).

On February 15^th, 2019, the People’s Committee of Commune B issued Proposal No. 71/TTr-UBND requesting the issuance of a Land Use Rights Certificate for Mr. Nhịn Tắc Hùng D and Mrs. Võ Thị M for the 1,170m² in Plot 77, Map Sheet 26, Commune B (attached with the public opinion survey by the People’s Committee of Commune B on January 20^th, 2019; the public registration list No. 15/DSCK by the People’s Committee of Commune B on January 29^th, 2019).

On May 6^th, 2019, the Department of Natural Resources and Environment issued Proposal No. 742/TTr-TNMT requesting to consider and issue a Land Use Rights Certificate for Mr. Nhịn Tắc Hùng D and Mrs. Võ Thị M for the 1,170m² in Plot 77, Map Sheet 26, Commune B.

On May 21^st, 2019, Mr. Nhịn Tắc Hùng D and Mrs. Võ Thị M were issued Land Use Rights Certificate No. CQ 908340 for the 1,170m² in Plot 77, Map Sheet 26, Commune B, District C, by the People’s Committee of District C.

The issuance of Land Use Rights Certificate No. CQ 908340 by the People’s Committee of District C for Mr. Nhịn Tắc Hùng D and Mrs. Võ Thị M for the 1,170m² in Plot 77, Map Sheet 26, Commune B, District C, was done according to the proper procedures.

3.2. Mrs. Võ Thị P1, Mrs. Võ Thị H, Mrs. Võ Thị H1, and Mr. Võ Văn Đ presented the following:

The disputed land traces its origins to their grandparents, Võ Văn T and Nguyễn Thị B1. During their lifetimes, the grandparents entrusted Plot 77, Map Sheet 26 to their parents, Mr. N and Mrs. P, for management and cultivation starting from 1979. Following Mr. N’s demise in 2019, their mother continued to oversee the land’s cultivation. Unbeknownst to Mrs. M, Mr. D and Mrs. M individually pursued registration for a land use rights certificate.

Despite the issuance of the Land Use Rights Certificate by the People’s Committee of District C to Mrs. M and Mr. D, the process of issuance was flawed. This was due to Mrs. P’s active management of the land at that time and the absence of the adjacent Plot 195 user’s signature in the evaluation committee’s proposal.

Currently, Mrs. M and Mr. D have instigated legal proceedings, demanding Mrs. P to relinquish the 1,170m² plot in Plot 77, Map Sheet 26, Commune B. Disagreeing with this claim, they urge the court to entertain Mrs. P’s counterclaim instead.

3.3. Mrs. Võ Thị H2 presented the following:

She is the daughter of Mrs. Nguyễn Thị P and the granddaughter of Mrs. Võ Thị M. She is aware of the ongoing dispute concerning land ownership between Mrs. M and Mrs. P, although she lacks knowledge regarding the plot number, Map Sheet, or exact area in question.

The land in dispute originated from her paternal grandparents and was distributed among their offspring. Specifically, the disputed portion was allocated to Mrs. Võ Thị M by her grandparents, although Ms. H2 is not aware of the specific timing or the existence of any formal documentation to substantiate this allocation. Apart from these details, Mrs. Võ Thị H2 has no additional statements to offer on the matter.

In the First-instance Civil Judgment No. 26/2022/DS-ST dated May 19th, 2022, the People’s Court of Long Thành District rendered the following rulings:

1. The court accepted the lawsuit filed by Mrs. Võ Thị M and Mr. Nhịn Tắc Hùng D, ordering Mrs. Nguyễn Thị P to return a land area of 1,170m², part of plotNo. 77, Map SheetNo. 26, B Commune, C District, Đồng Nai Province. This area is specified by points 1, 2, 3, 4, 1 on the current status map No. 5213/2021 from the Đồng Nai Provincial Land Registration Office – Long Thành Branch dated May 18^th, 2021. The plot was granted Certificate of Land Use Rights, House Ownership, and Other Assets Attached to the Land No. CQ 908340 by the People’s Committee of C District on May 21^st, 2019, under entry number CH 25154. The boundaries are as follows: East borders plot 83; South borders plot 76; North borders plot 195; West borders a concrete road.
2. Mrs. Nguyễn Thị P’s request to annul Certificate No. CQ 908340, entry number CH 25154, issued on May 21^st, 2019, in the names of Võ Thị M and Nhịn Tắc Hùng D, was rejected. The court recognized the right of Mrs. Nguyễn Thị P and her children (heirs of Mr. N) to use 1,170m² of land from plot77, Map SheetNo. 26, B Commune, C District, Đồng Nai Province.
3. Ownership of 560 Melaleuca trees with an average diameter of 8cm and 20 bamboo trees with an average height of 6m, attached to the disputed land use rights, was granted to Mrs. Võ Thị M and Mr. Nhịn Tắc Hùng D.
4. Mrs. Võ Thị M and Mr. Nhịn Tắc Hùng D were ordered to compensate Mrs. Nguyễn Thị P and Mr. Võ Văn Đ for the value of the 560 Melaleuca trees and 20 bamboo trees, totaling VND 5,840,000.

Additionally, the judgment addressed court fees, enforcement obligations, and the right to appeal.

Following the judgment, Mrs. Nguyễn Thị P appealed on May 25^th, 2022. On May 26^th, 2022, Ms. Võ Thị P1, Mrs. Võ Thị H1, Mrs. Võ Thị H2, and Mr. Võ Văn Đ also appealed, seeking the annulment of the first-instance judgment.

On June 14^th, 2022, the Chief Procurator of the People’s Procuracy of Đồng Nai Province filed a protest, requesting the vacatur of the first-instance judgment on grounds that the first-instance court had exceeded its jurisdiction.

In the Appellate Civil Judgment No. 151/2022/DS-PT dated October 12, 2022, the People’s Court of Đồng Nai Province decided to uphold the First-instance Civil Judgment No. 26/2022/DS-ST dated May 19^th, 2022, of the People’s Court of Long Thành District, Đồng Nai Province.

The appellate judgment also pronounced on litigation costs, court fees, and the enforceability of the judgment.

On November 9^th, 2022, Mrs. Nguyễn Thị P, Ms. Võ Thị P1, Mrs. Võ Thị H1, Mrs. Võ Thị H, and Mr. Võ Văn Đ submitted a request for a cassation review.

On November 11, 2022, the Chief Procurator of the People’s Procuracy of Đồng Nai Province issued Notice No. 1583/TB-VKS-DS requesting a cassation review.

In Decision No. 102/QĐ-VKS-DS dated May 9^th, 2023, the Chief Procurator of the High People’s Procuracy in Hồ Chí Minh City protested the Appellate Civil Judgment No. 151/2022/DS-PT dated October 12^th, 2022, of the People’s Court of Đồng Nai Province, recommending the Judges’ Committee of High People’s Court in Hồ Chí Minh City to review the case towards vacating both the appellate and first-instance civil judgments and remanding the case file to the People’s Court of Đồng Nai Province for re-adjudication according to legal provisions.

At the cassation hearing, the representative of the High People’s Procuracy in Hồ Chí Minh City requested the Judges’ Committee of the High People’s Court in Hồ Chí Minh City to accept the protest by the Chief Procurator of the High People’s Procuracy in Hồ Chí Minh City.

COURT’S OPINION:

[1] The disputed land measuring 1,170m², part of plot 77, Map Sheet No. 26, B Commune, C District, Đồng Nai Province, originates from Mr. Võ Văn T (deceased in 1979) and Mrs. Nguyễn Thị B1 (deceased in 1998). They had five children: Võ Văn B, Võ Văn R, Võ Thị Đ, Võ Thị M, and Võ Văn N (also known as N1, deceased in 2016), who fathered five children: Võ Thị H2, Võ Thị H1, Võ Thị H, Võ Thị P1, and Võ Văn Đ.

Mrs. M asserted that around 1984, Mrs. B1 allocated 2,000m² to each child, with Mr. N receiving 3,000m² (although undocumented). Mrs. M and her husband applied for the Certificate of Land Use Rights (CLUR) last, with the remaining 1,170m² identified as plot 77. Mrs. P claimed that her parents-in-law allocated 4,000m² to her husband, lacking clear boundaries, and that she and her husband were granted CLUR for over 3,700m², including plot 77.

[2] According to CLUR No. AH 422611 issued by the People’s Committee of C District to Mr. Võ Văn N on October 19^th, 2007, 3,745m² is part of plot 58, Map Sheet No. 26, B Commune. In 2015, Mr. N requested plot 58 be subdivided into plot 195 (1,794.4m²), plot 196 (527.3m²), and plot 197 (1,373.7m²), reduced by 49.6m² due to boundary adjustments, with no disputes or additional sales.

Therefore, all land allocated by Mrs. B1 to Mr. N and Mrs. P received CLUR, corresponding to the area identified by Mrs. P as received from her parents-in-law. Mrs. P’s claim that plot 77, Map Sheet 26, B Commune, is part of excess land from plot 58 is inaccurate.

The first-instance and appellate courts rightly identified the 1,170m² of plot 77 as belonging to Mr. D and Mrs. M, gifted by Mrs. B1, thus affirming the plaintiff’s claim and rejecting the defendant’s counterclaim. These decisions were legally sound and aligned with statutory provisions.

[3] Additionally, the protest argued that on January 11^th, 2021, Mrs. P filed a counterclaim seeking the annulment of the CLUR issued by the People’s Committee of C District to Mr. D and Mrs. M. Nonetheless, in resolving a civil case involving an administrative decision, if annulling that decision is unnecessary but the civil case can still be properly resolved without annulling it, the civil court retains jurisdiction to proceed.

In this instance, the issuance of CLUR No. CQ 908340, house ownership, and other attached assets by the People’s Committee of C District on May 21^st, 2019, to Mr. D and Mrs. M for the 1,170m² of plot 77 adhered to legal protocols and was not an unlawful administrative decision. Therefore, the continuation of the case under first-instance procedures by the People’s Court of Long Thành District, pursuant to Article 34 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015, was lawful.

In light of the foregoing,

IT IS DECIDED:

Pursuant to Articles 325, 337, 342, 343, 348, and 349 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015:

1. The Protest Decision No. 102/QĐ-VKS-DS, dated May 9^th, 2023, issued by the Chief Procurator of the High People’s Procuracy in Hồ Chí Minh City, is rejected.
2. The Appellate Civil Judgment No. 151/2022/DS-PT, dated October 12^th, 2022, rendered by the People’s Court of Đồng Nai Province in the case involving “Recovery of property as land use rights; recognition of land use rights; annulment of the Certificate of Land Use Rights” between the plaintiffs, Mr. Nhịn Tắc Hùng D and Mrs. Võ Thị M, and the defendant, Mrs. Nguyễn Thị P, and other interested parties, is upheld.
3. This cassation decision shall take effect immediately upon issuance.

CONTENT OF THE CASE LAW:

“[3] … the protest argued that on January 11^th, 2021, Mrs. P filed a counterclaim seeking the annulment of the CLUR issued by the People’s Committee of C District to Mr. D and Mrs. M. Nonetheless, in resolving a civil case involving an administrative decision, if annulling that decision is unnecessary but the civil case can still be properly resolved without annulling it, the civil court retains jurisdiction to proceed.

In this instance, the issuance of CLUR No. CQ 908340, house ownership, and other attached assets by the People’s Committee of C District on May 21^st, 2019, to Mr. D and Mrs. M for the 1,170m² of plot 77 adhered to legal protocols and was not an unlawful administrative decision. Therefore, the continuation of the case under first-instance procedures by the People’s Court of Long Thành District, pursuant to Article 34 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015, was lawful.”

THE RATIONALE FOR THE CASE LAW DRAFT’S PROPOSAL

According to Clause 4, Article 34 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015, which pertains to the court’s jurisdiction over individual administrative decisions made by agencies or organizations:

“4. The jurisdiction of the court handling the civil case in cases where the annulment of an individual administrative decision is considered, as specified in Clause 1 of this Article, is determined according to the corresponding provisions of the Administrative Procedure Law on the jurisdiction of the District-level People’s Courts and provincial-level People’s Courts.”

Additionally, Clause 4, Article 32 of the Administrative Procedure Law stipulates that provincial-level People’s Courts are responsible for adjudicating first-instance cases involving administrative decisions and actions of District-level People’s Committees and their chairpersons within the same administrative boundary.

As clarified in Part II of Operational Guidance No. 02/2016/GĐ-TANDTC issued on September 19, 2016, by the Supreme People’s Court:

“When resolving a civil case that involves an individual administrative decision made by an agency or organization, the court must assess the legality of that decision.

…

In cases where resolving the civil case involves an individual administrative decision but annulling it is not necessary, and not annulling it still ensures the proper resolution of the civil case, the court handling the civil case should proceed with its resolution.”

Furthermore, considering the current workload pressure on provincial-level People’s Courts, which often deal with numerous cases requiring the annulment of individual administrative decisions, there is a need to clarify the interpretation of Operational Guidance No. 02/2016/GĐ-TANDTC and to alleviate the burden on these courts while ensuring stable dispute resolution.

In cases where it is confirmed that the individual administrative decision of the District-level People’s Committee chairperson was issued in compliance with proper procedures and where annulment of that decision is unnecessary, the District-level People’s Court handling the case should continue to adjudicate it.

This scenario frequently arises in practice when resolving civil cases that involve challenges to individual administrative decisions made by competent administrative authorities. Therefore, to promote consistent application of the law in determining jurisdiction for similar legal situations, the Legal Affairs and Scientific Management Department proposes that the Judges’ Council consider this proposal as a guiding case law.

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

You can also download the .docx version here.