T SUPREME PEOPLE’S COURSE
——-

SOCIAL REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM
Independence – Freedom – Happiness
—————

Number: 220 / QD-CA

Hanoi, April 6, 2016

DECISION

ABOUT THE DISCLOSURE OF PREVENTION

COMPLETE THE SUPREME PEOPLE’S COURT

Pursuant to Article 27 of the Law on Organization of the People’s Courts 2014;

Based on Resolution No. 03/2015 / NQ-HDTP dated October 28, 2015 of the Council m asia n The Supreme People’s Court on the process of selection, publication and application of case law;

Based on the results of selection and voting through the judgment l of the Court of Judges People’s Project i am high i Session minutes Meeting April 6, 2016,

DECISION:

Article 1. Publication of 06 (six) case law was passed by the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court on April 6, 2016. The case law is issued together with this Decision.

Article 2. People’s Courts and Military Courts are responsible for researching and applying case law judgments from June 1, 2016.

The application of case law is carried out in accordance with the guidance in Article 8 of Resolution No. 03/2015 / NQ-HDTP dated October 28, 2015 of the Supreme People’s Court Judges process of selection, publication and application of case law.

Article 3. This decision is effective from the date of signing.

 

Recipients:
– Standing Committee of the National Assembly (for reporting purpose);
– Judicial Committee of the National Assembly;
Incubate the legislative committee of the National Assembly;
– Vietnam Fatherland Front Central Committee;
– Central Internal Affairs Committee;
– Steering Committee of the Central Government;
– Office of the President;
– People’s Procuratorate of the Supreme;
– Judicial;
– Police;
– Vietnam Bar Federation;
– Central Vietnam Lawyers Association;
– People’s Courts and Military Courts;
– Judges of the SPC;
– Units of the SPC;
– Filed: Administrative files (SPC, PC Management Department).

PRESSURE

Truong Hoa Binh

 

Case law No. 01/2016 / AL

Approved April 6, 2016 by the Supreme People’s Court Judge and published under Decision No. 220 / QD- CA April 6, 2016 of the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court.

Case law:

Jurisdictional decision No. 04/2014 / HS-GĐT dated April 16, 2014 of the Council of Judges of the Dark People’s Court high on the “Murder” case for the accused: Dong Xuan Phuong, born in 1975; stay at No. 11/73, Dinh Tien Hoang Street, Hoang Van Thu Ward, Hong Bang District, Hai Phong City; construction workers; Mr. Dong Xuan Lead’s son and Mrs. Duong Thi Thong; arrested on June 22, 2007;

The victim: Nguyen Van Soi, born in 1971 (dead).

Overview of the content of the case law:

In case of a criminal, if it proves that the subjective consciousness of the instigator is to hire others to cause injury to people being harmed without the intention of depriving them of their lives (the owner intends only to cause injury to the victim’s legs and arms without requiring an attack on the vital parts of the body likely to lead to Deadly); the practitioner also performed according to the request of the mastermind; the death of the victim outside the subjective consciousness of the instigator, the mastermind must be responsible for about the “Intentional injury” framing is “causing injury leading to death”.

Rules of law regarding case law:

– Point m, n clause 1 Article 93 of the Criminal Code 1999;

– Clause 3 Article 104 of the Criminal Code 1999.

Keyword of case law:

“Kill people”; “Deliberately inflicting injury”; “Harming the health of others”; “Crimes of infringing on life and health”; “Hiring others to cause injury”.

CASE CONTENT

About 15 hours on June 21, 2007, the police of Long Bien District, Hanoi City received a report that a case occurred. , the victim died in the area of ​​casting concrete beams of Thanh Tri Bridge in the area of ​​Group 12, Thach Ban Ward, Long Bien District; The victim is Mr. Nguyen Van Soi (construction engineer of Construction Joint Stock Company 204 under Bach Dang Construction Corporation). Through investigation and verification, the police of Long Bien district have arrested emergency Xuan Phuong Dong.

The investigation process identifies: Mr. Nguyen Van Soi and Dong Xuan Phuong work together at Construction Joint Stock Company 204 under General Company Bach D Construction Company ng (assigned to execute and build Thanh Tri bridge). Around February, 2007, The year number drunk tr the time of work, he used mobile phone Soi Taking pictures, reporting leaders, Phuong intended to have to take revenge on Mr. Soi.

On June 14, 2007, Dong Xuan Phuong phoned a friend Doan Duc Lan born in 1975 (residing at No. 11 C98 Banana Camp, Hong Bang District, Hai Phong City) said the above conflict and hired Lan to take revenge. Lan said he would introduce others to do it. In the evening of June 17, 2007, Phuong came from Hanoi to Hai Phong to meet Lan and Lan’s friend Hoang Ngoc Manh was born in 1982 (also known as Thang; residing in So Dau Ward, Hong Bang District, Hai Phong City). the contradiction and hire Lan, Manh to beat him Soi, by stabbing the victim’s legs and arms to cause injuries. Dong Xuan Phuong asked how much, Manh and Lan said so Phuong gave Manh 1,500,000 VND. Lan and M sir agree.

About 20 hours on June 20, 2007, Hoang Ngoc M sir go with Nam (friend Manh; cannot identify the address) to Hanoi to meet Dong Xuan Phuong agreed that he will beat Mr. Soi on June 21, 2007; Phuong then gave VND 500,000 to Manh to rent a bed. A If n is about 9 o’clock on June 21, 2007, Phuong leads Manh and Nam to the road where Mr. Soi will go to attend the meeting at the beginning of that afternoon; then return to the Company. About 1 1 hour, Hoang Ngoc Manh comes to the water shop at the junction q ê lộ 5 – 1B (the shop of Mrs. Phạm Thị Burma) rented a mobile phone from Burma to phone Dong Xuan Phuong asking to describe the identity and notification of Mr. Soi’s mobile phone number; Phuong has done according to Manh’s request. A Leave n about h the 13 pm, Manh hired a cell phone from Burma’s sister to call Phuong to inform him that Identified that Mr. Soi and Manh will perform alone because currently Nam has left without notice, Dong Xuan Phuong agrees.

About 14 hours 16 minutes on the same day, M sir I rented a mobile phone Myanmar’s phone calls to meet Mr. Soi in the concrete beam casting area. When Mr. Soi arrived, Manh used a sharp knife to prepare 2 stabbing in the back of his right thigh, causing him to die.

At Legal Assessment y number 146 / PC21-PY on 17-7- 2007, Department of Criminal Engineering – Con g Hanoi city concluded: the victim suffered 02 injuries on the back of the right thigh, the upper wound penetrated the thigh muscle 3cm . V The bottom of the artery cut off the artery, t If the the rear thigh circuit caused a lot of blood loss. Causes of death: shock without blood loss due to artery injury.

Also, tr the process of investigation of Dong Xuan Phuong also states: beyond reason due to the conflict between the accused and Mr. Soi, the stabbing of Mr. Soi was caused by Mr. Ngo Van To who n (the deputy director of Thanh Tri bridge project) ) agitated, because before that Toan also had a conflict with Mr. Soi. The investigating agency took his testimony To she n, but To To the n did not acknowledge this. The survey results do not have a basis to conclude Mr. Toan is involved in the case.

Doan Duc Lan and Hoang Ngoc Manh escaped, the Investigation Agency has made a wanted decision and the decision to suspend the investigation was For Doan Duc Lan and Hoang Ngoc Manh, when will be caught, it will be handled later.

During the investigation process, officials and Construction Joint Stock Company 204 voluntarily donated and subsidized the families a total of 123,000,000 VND, tr that bee has a burial cost of VND 63,000,000 and 03 savings books for Mr. Soi’s family, with a total deposit of VND 60,000 .000 VND.

At the first instance criminal judgment No. 164/2008 / HSST on November 17, 2008, Court á n people in Hanoi city apply point n clause 1 Article 93; Point p, Clause 1, Article 46 of the Criminal Code; punish Dong Xuan Phuong for 17 years in prison for “Murder”.

Forcing Dong Xuan Phuong to compensate the victim’s family for mental loss of VND 32,400,000 and monthly support for 02 child and mother of the victim.

After the first instance trial, defendant Dong Xuan Phuong appeals the proposal to review the case.

The legal representative of the victim is Ms. Nguyen Thi Thanh who appeals the penalty increase, compensates the accused. .

At the appellate criminal judgment No. 262/2009 / HSPT dated 05-5-2009, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme People’s Court In Hanoi, based on Clause 1, Article 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code, cancel the above-mentioned first-instance criminal judgment to re-investigate according to general procedures.

In the criminal judgment of first instance No. 167/2010 / HSST on March 31, 2010, Hanoi People’s Court using Point n, Clause 1, Article 93; Point p, Clause 1, Article 46 of the Criminal Code; punish Dong Xuan Phuong for 17 years in prison for “Murder”.

Forced Spring and Spring thanks for the span span = burial expense 34,583 . 00 0 VND, the mental loss for harmed human wife is 39.0 00 . 00 0 and monthly support for mother and human being harmed.

After the first instance trial, on April 2, 2010, Dong Xuan Phuong appealed for a reduction of penalties and proposed a review The case for not catching M is so there is not enough evidence to confirm Manh’s death on Soi.

On April 13, 2010, the victim’s wife, Nguyen Thi Thanh, appealed for an increase in penalties and increased compensation. with the accused.

At the Appellate Criminal Court No. 475/2010 / HSPT dated September 15, 2010, the Appellate Court of the Supreme People’s Court In Hanoi, points m and n of Clause 1, Article 93 are applied; Point p, Clause 1, Article 46 of the Criminal Code; punish Dong Xuan Phuong for life imprisonment for “Murder”; Forcing Dong Xuan Phuong to compensate for mental injury compensation of VND 43,800,000 and upholding other decisions on compensation.

At the Appeal No. 13 / KN-HS dated July 22, 2013, the Chief Judge of the Supreme People’s Court issuesg has the Council of the Supreme People’s Court Judges adjudicate according to the procedure of cassation review to cancel the Criminal Appeal Criminal Court tr About the parts: criminal charges, penalties and criminal charges of appeals against Dong Xuan Phuong; transfer the case file to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme People’s Court in Hanoi for re-appellate trial in accordance with the provisions of law.

At the trial, the representative of the Supreme People’s Procurator agrees with the Appeal of the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court.

The Supreme People’s Court Judges’ Council says:

Based on the confession statements of the defendant Dong Xuan Phuong during the process a and at the trial of first instance, the appellate trial; testimony and results of identification of witnesses on subjects related to the case; Minutes of field examination; The report has a medical system and other documents and evidence of the case; having enough conclusions because of conflicts in life, Dong Xuan Phuong hired Hoang Ngoc Manh and Doan Duc Lan to stab Nguyen Van Soi with the knife, with the aim of injuring the victims to tr enemies. According to the documents in the case file; Based on the subjective determination, Phuong just wanted to injure Mr. Soi but did not want to deprive his life, nor did he want to hire Manh to stab and stab him to let all consequences happen. Therefore, the accused only requires attacks on the legs and arms without asking for to work on the vital parts of the body, which are positions if struck public, it will be more likely to harm the victim’s life. When carrying out a crime, Manh stabbed two blows on the victim’s thighs in accordance with Phuong’s requirements. Hoang Ngoc Manh’s offense is hard to foresee a deadly consequence. The death of the victim due to an unrecognized acute blood loss is beyond the will of Dong Xuan Phuong and his co-conspirators. The behavior of Dong Xuan Phuong is in the case of deliberate crime of causing injury, leading to death, as stipulated in Clause 3, Article 104 of the Code h . The Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal condemned Dong Xuan Phuong for the crime of “Murder” is illegal.

For the above reasons, pursuant to Clause 3 Article 285 and Article 287 Criminal Procedure Code,

DECISION

1. Canceling the Appellate Criminal Court No. 475/2010 / HSPT dated September 15, 2010 of the Appellate Court of the Supreme People’s Court in Hanoi on the parts: crime, h Penalty and criminal charges of appeals against Dong Xuan Phuong; transfer the case file to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme People’s Court in Hanoi for re-appellate trial in accordance with the provisions of law.

2. Continuing to hold Dong Xuan Phuong detention until the Court of Appeal of the Supreme People’s Court in Hanoi reconsidered the case.

3. Other decisions of the above Criminal Court of Appeal have taken legal effect.

SHORT CONTENT

“According to the documents in the case file, there are grounds to determine subjectively, Phuong just wants to cause injury for Mr. Soi without wishing to deprive him network, nor want to hire Manh to harass and stab at Soi Soi all the consequences occur. V eh so, the accused only requires attack on the legs, hands without requiring attack on the vital parts of the body, if the position is attacked, it is more likely to invade t the victim’s network When executing a crime, Manh stabbed two blows on the victim’s thighs according to Phuong’s request. before the deadly consequences c can happen. It is out of the victim’s death due to the unrecoverable blood loss > wants of Dong Xuan Phuong and accomplices, Dong Xuan Phuong’s behavior belongs to a criminal case ý causes injury d i n to death, specified in Clause 3, Article 104 of the Criminal Code. Court grants m and the Court of Justice m has sentenced the Spring and the Fall n g to the” Murder “is illegal.”

Case law No. 02/2016 / AL </ p >

Approved on April 6, 2016, by the Supreme People’s Court Judge and entitled umbrella announced under Decision No. 220 / QD-CA April 6, 2016 of Chief Justice of the People’s Court i high.

Case law:

Jurisdictional decision No. 27/2010 / DS-GDT dated 08 July 2010 of the Council of Judges of the Dark People’s Court high on the case Property claim dispute” in Soc Trang province between the original is is Mrs. Nguyen Thi Thuy with the defendant, Mr. Nguyen Van Tam; people with related rights and obligations are Ms. Nguyen Thi Yem.

Overview of the content of the case law:

Where overseas Vietnamese have spent money to receive land use rights transfer and ask people in the country to stand if the name of a land user has a right to transfer the land use right, when the dispute is settled, the Court must consider and the effort to preserve, preserve and enhance the land use right value for the person named by the household; If the person’s effort cannot be determined correctly If it is necessary to determine who actually pays to receive the transfer of land use rights and the right person g name of transfer of rights g household land has equal effort to divide the difference in value compared to the original money received transfer of original land use rights.

Rules of law regarding case law:

Article 137 and Article 235 of the 2005 Civil Code.

Keyword of case law:

“Ineffective civil transactions”; “Reclaiming property”; “Base for ownership establishment”; “Establishing ownership of income”; “Vietnamese people Have stay abroad”.

CASE CONTENT

At the application at i sue on January 24, 2005, the date declaration February 7, 2005 and the process of resolving the case Ms. Nguyen Thi Thanh is the plaintiff presented:

She is an overseas Vietnamese in the Netherlands visiting relatives in Vietnam and intending to transfer the land use right, so the 10th August 8, 1993, did you accept the transfer of Mr. Thang Tinh and his wife, Ly Thi Sa Quach, the area 7 . 595, 7 m 2 farmland in Ward 7, Soc Trang town for 21.99 gold. She is the person who directly deals, the transfer and payment agreement, and gold for Mr. Thang Tinh and his wife. The purpose of Mrs. Thieng is to transfer land to her younger brother Nguyen Van Tam and Mrs. Nguyen Thi Chinh Em to cultivate her parents and Mr. Tam’s parents. Because she was a Vietnamese residing abroad, she let Mr. Tam stand in the paper of concessions. At the same time, Ms. Thu presented “The land transfer book” established on August 10, 1993, certified by An Hiep Commune People’s Committee. After receiving the transfer, she let Tam’s husband and wife cultivate, but in 2004, it was impossible for her to oh , Mr. Tam transferred the entire area of ​​7,595, 7m 2 above land for Minh Chau Limited Company with a land use right value of VND 1,260,000,000. So she asked Mr. Tam to to return the proceeds from the transfer of her land.

Mr. Nguyen Van Tam is the defendant presented:

The area of ​​7,595.7m 2 the land that Ms. Le disputed is the land because the couple is the one who spends the money , the gold was transferred and transferred by Mr. Thang Tinh and his wife and husband, who was named in the “Land transfer permit” on August 10, 1993. This transfer sheet is not certified by the local government. But after that, he and Mr. Thang Tinh and his husband signed a contract and application for land use right transfer on August 11, 1993, these documents were certified by the Commune People’s Committee of An Hiep and the district People’s Committee. Tu agrees to transfer. After the transfer, he registered and declared a land use right certificate on May 28, 1994. Therefore, in 2004, he transferred all of the above land to Minh Chau Limited Company with a value of VND 1,260,000,000. He said that “The land transfer contract” was established on August 10, 1993, certified by the People’s Committee of An Hiep Commune presented by Ms. Thanh, because according to the u appraisal No. 2784 / C21 (P7) October 25, 2005 of Institute of Science H as the General Department of Police is not the signature of He handed over the field land presented by Ms. Thanh. Therefore, he did not agree to the petition of Ms. Thanh.

Ms. Nguyen Thi Yêm (Mr. Tam’s wife) is a person with related rights and obligations: In 1993, she and her husband had transfer of Mr. Thang Tinh’s land. When carrying out the transfer procedure, she did not participate, but she gave money and gold to Mr. Tam to Mr. Thang Tinh and his wife, so she did not attend p as requested. Ms. Thanh’s.

Mr. Thang Tinh and Mrs. Ly Thi Sa Quieu (another name is Ly Thi Sa Vong) are land transferers who affirm Ms. Thanh directly agreed the transfer agreement, directly paid 21.99 gold only for him, grandmother and Mrs. Thanh to let Mr. Tam stand in the title of land transfer ru established on August 10, 1993; the signature in the sheet to hand over the farm land presented by Mrs. Thanh is the signature of Mr. and Mrs..

At the first instance civil judgment No. 04/2006 / DS-ST dated April 28, 2006, the People’s Court of Soc Trang Province decision:

Accept a part of the request of Ms. Nguyen Thi Thanh about reclaiming land transfer money.

Forcing Mr. and Mrs. Nguyen Van Tam, Mrs. Nguyen Thi Yêm to be responsible for for Mrs. Nguyen Th Position 630,000,000 VND.

In addition, the Court of First Instance also decides on the legal costs and the cost of inspection and declares the right to appeal to the litigants. legal regulations.

On May 10, 2006, Mr. Nguyen Van Tam appealed that Ms. Thanh is not a person who has rules about span lang = “VI” use The land that he transferred to ceded to the Company responsibility finite Minh Chau nh u ng The first-instance court forced him to pay Ms. Thanh 630 million VND incorrectly.

On May 12, 2006, Mr. Nguyen Huu Phong (representing Ms. Thanh) appealed the proposal to Court of Appeal for trial forced Mr. Tam All the money that Mr. Tam has transferred is 1,260,000,000 VND for Mrs. Thieng .

At the appellate civil judgment No. 334/2006 / DS-PT dated August 25, 2006, T broke down span lang = “VI”> appellate Supreme People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City decides: to request the appeal of the plaintiff and defendant, correct the first instance verdict as follows:

Accept a part of the request of Ms. Nguyen Thi Thanh about reclaiming land use rights transfer.

Forcing Mr. Nguyen Van Tam, Ms. Nguyen Thi Yem to repay Nguyen Thi Thanh with the amount of VND 27,047,700 equivalent 21 , 99 only 24k gold.

Forcing Mr. and Mrs. Nguyen Van Tam and Mrs. Nguyen Thi Yem to return the amount of VND 1,232,266,860 to supplement the State fund.

In addition, the Court of Appeal decides on court fees.

After the appellate trial, Mr. Nguyen Van Tam complained about the above-mentioned civil judgment.

In Decision No. 449/2009 / KN-DS on August 21, 2009, the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court appeals span Appellate civil judgment No. 334/2006 / DS-PT dated August 25, 2006 by T on span = “VI” Court appellate People’s Supreme Project in Ho Chi Minh City, requesting the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court to hear cassation review, cancel the above-mentioned appellate judgment and cancel the first instance civil judgment of April 4, 2006 DS-ST on April 28, 2006 by the People’s Court of Soc Trang Province; hand over the case file to the People’s Court of Soc Trang province for a first-instance trial according to the provisions of law, with the judgment:

“Ms. N g uyễn Thị Thảnh initiated a lawsuit against Mr. Nguyen Van Tam and said that because she was a Vietnamese residing abroad, she asked Mr. Tam (her younger brother) to transfer the land of Mr. Thang Tinh and her husband to her, but then Mr. Tam transferred it. her land for others.

Court of First Instance and Court of Appeal determines Mr. Tam ch only The name of the land transferer of Mr. Thang and his wife is for Mrs. Thieng to be grounded.

Since Ms. Thieng is a Vietnamese residing abroad, she is not allowed to hand over the land but only to return the first part land transfer money.

For land value differences, the time of trial of first instance and appellate trial is the time of implementing the Civil Code of the year. 2005, there is no regulation to confiscate public funds, so the difference between Ms. Thanh and Mr. Tam is g . The Court of First Instance does not force Mr. Tam to pay the difference of land value to be confiscated as a basis but not g to force g Eight pays Ms. Thanh the initial investment value is not correct. The Court of Appeal failed to provide a legal basis but forced Mr. Tam to pay the full amount of difference (VND 1,232,226,860) to supplement the State fund which is not in accordance with regulations and law. ”

At the cassation trial, the representative of the Supreme People’s Procuracy requests the Supreme People’s Court Judges Council to accept receive the appeal of the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court to abolish the Court of Appeal stated write down and cancel the first-instance Civil Judgment No. 04/2006 / DS-ST dated 28 -4-2006 of People’s Court t addressing in Soc Trang; hand over the case file to the People’s Court of Soc Trang province for a first-instance trial according to the provisions of law.

The Supreme People’s Court Judges’ Council says:

Ms. Nguyen Th The petition for petitioning Mr. Nguyen Van Tam returns to her 1,260,000,000 VND because she thinks that she is the person who directly deals with the transfer of Mr. Thang’s couple, calculating 7,595,7m 2 land, but because she is a Vietnamese residing in the country. besides, ask Mr. Tam (her brother) to give his name, but he does not agree with it. g Eight have transferred the entire land area to Minh Chau Co., Ltd.to receive VND 1,260,000,000.

Mr. Tam thinks that he is the person who agreed to transfer the land and tr the money for Mr. Thang Tinh, so the land transfer papers he named. After receiving the transfer, he directly managed to use, register to declare, be granted a land use right certificate and when he transferred to Minh Chau Co., Ltd, which was authorized by the government, he did not accept love. Ms. Thanh’s bridge.

However, the process of resolving the case of Mr. Tam and his wife has many contradictory testimonies about the number money, gold paid for Mr. Thang Tinh and he did not prove the origin of the gold money that he thought paid him.

Whereas his wife and her husband, the sheer grandmother g intend to negotiate the transfer only assigning land and receiving Ms. Thanh’s gold and writing a land transfer paper named Mr. Tam is at the request of Ms. Thanh, because Ms. Thanh is residing abroad.

According to the testimony of Thai Thi Ba, Mr. Nguyen Phuoc Hoang, Ms. Nguyen Thi Chinh Em (her mother and siblings Mr., Mr. Tam) Mrs. Transaction , paid for the transfer of land to the couple, Mr. Tam ch only is the one who names it.

Summary of the above evidence has a basis to confirm that the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal span lang = “VI”> m identifies Ms. Thanh as the person who gave up the entire amount of 21.99 only gold to receive the transfer of the above area, and Mr. Tam ch only who is the name. Because Mr. Tam has transferred the land to to Minh Chau Co., Ltd and Mrs. Thanh only asked Mr. Tam to return the transferred amount of 1,260. 00 0.000 VND so the Court of First Instance and Appeal for handling is correct in accordance with the law.

Although she is a person who leaves 21.99 ch just gold to transfer land ( equivalent to about VND 27,047,700). But the transfer document was named after Mr. Tam and after receiving the transfer, Mr. Tam managed the land, then transferred it to and ceded it to others. Thus, it should have been determined that Mr. Tam had the effort to preserve, keep g ,, revise and increase the price with land should determine the amount above (after deducting the principal equivalent to 21.99 gold only of Ms. Thanh) is the common profit of Ms. Thanh and Mr. Tam. At the same time determine the effort of Mr. Tam to share with Mr. Tam a part corresponding to his efforts and to ensure the rights of the litigants (In case he cannot determine his efforts, it must be Identifying Ms. Thanh, Mr. Tam has equal effort to divide.

The Court of First Instance recognizes Ms. Thanh, Mr. Tam each has the right to own half of the above amount but does not pay for Ms. Thanh’s amount equivalent to 21.99 gold is not correct.

The Court of Appeal only acknowledges that Ms. Tu has the right to own the corresponding amount of 21.99 gold, and the profit is The remaining amount confiscated from public funds is not in accordance with the provisions of the 2005 Civil Code, does not guarantee the interests of the litigants.

In addition, Ms. Cheng Yu sued Mr. Tam to pay her VND 1,260,000,000, which is the sum of money transferred by Mr. Tam. span reserves the right to use 7,595.7m 2 land, without dispute over land use rights, and Mr. Tam thinks that the amount above is yours. Thus, the litigants disputing property ownership are the above amounts. But the Court of First Instance m and the Court of Appeal re-affirmed that the legal relationship is “Property claim dispute” is incorrect.

B in i above, based on clause 3 Article 297 and Article 299 Ministry civil procedure law;

DECISION

1- H delegate Appellate civil judgment No. 334/2006 / DSPT date August 25, 2006 of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City and the first instance civil judgment No. 04/2006 / DS-ST dated April 28, 2006 of the People’s Court of Soc Trang Province on the case of a dispute over property claim between the plaintiff, Mrs. Nguyen Thi Th , the with the defendant Nguyen Van Tam; people with related rights and obligations are Ms. Nguyen Thi Yem.

2- Hand over the case file to the People’s Court of Soc Trang province for a first-instance trial according to the provisions of law.

SHORT CONTENT

“Although Ms. Thanh is the one who gives up 21.99 gold only to transfer land (equivalent to about VND 27,047,700). But the transfer document was named after Mr. Tam and after receiving the title he conceded Mr. Tam managed the land, then transferred it to others. Thus, l will have to determine that Mr. Tam has the effort in preserving, preserving and embellishing to increase the land value, so determine the amount above (after deducting the original amount equivalent to 21.99 gold of Ms. Thanh only) is the common profit of Ms. Thanh and Mr. Tam. At the same time, determine Mr. Tam’s effort to share with him Eight parts corresponding to his efforts to ensure and ensure q u benefits of the litigants (In case Mr. Tam’s effort cannot be determined correctly, Mr. Thanh and Mr. Tam have equal efforts to divide). “

Case number 03/2016 / AL

Approved April 6, 2016 and approved by the Supreme People’s Court Judge, and according to Decision s number 220 / QD-CA April 6, 2016 of the Chief Justice Supreme People’s Court.

Project ue:

Decision No. 208/2013 / DS-GDT dated 03-5-2013 of T ò Civilian Supreme People’s Court on the “Divorce” case in Hanoi between the plaintiff is Ms. Do Th Hong with the defendant is Mr. Pham Gia Nam; people with related rights and obligations are Mr. Pham Gia Phac, Mrs. Phung Thi Tai, Mr. Pham Gia In n, Ms. Pham Thi Lu, Mr. Bui Van Dap, Ms. Do Thị Ngọc Hà .

Overview of the content of the case law:

If the parents have a couple of children and a couple of spouses built and solidly built on the area that land is used as a place to live, when the couple builds their house parents and other family members have no objection; The couple has used the house, land continuously, openly and stably and conducted the land declaration and granted the land use right certificate, it is necessary to determine whether the couple has been given the rights. use land.

Rules of law regarding case law:

– Article 14 of the Marriage and Family Law of 1986;

– Article 242 of the Civil Code 1995;

– Clause 2 Article 176 of the Civil Code 1995.

Keyword of case law:

“Divorce”; Common property of husband and wife”; “Donate to property”; “Base for ownership establishment”; “Establish ownership by agreement”.

CASE CONTENT

Ms. Do Th has Hong and Mr. Pham Gia Nam married in 1992, posted signed at Van Tao Commune People’s Committee, Thuong Tin District, Hanoi City. After living together for a while, there was conflict, the couple lived separately from September 2008 until now. On April 18, 2009, Ms. Hong sued for a divorce from Mr. Nam, Mr. Nam also agreed.

V Common children: Husband and wife have two children, Pham Gia Khang, born in 1992 and Pham Huong Giang, born in 2000. Ms. Hong and Mr. Nam wishes to raise both children and does not require the other to contribute. The wish of the person u Khang wants to stay with Mr. Nam, Giang’s wish is to stay with Ms Hong.

V Assets: In the process of coexistence, the couple built a two-story house in 2002 (in 2005 built a tumble to heat resistant), the house was built on the land plot 80m 2 in Van Hoa hamlet, Van Tao commune, Thuong Tin district. V To the house, the couple agreed to be the common property of the couple. As for land, the parties cannot agree on each other.

According to Ms. Hong: The land is of the family nh Pham Gia Phac (father He gave birth to Nam), was granted a stretch of land for people in 1992, then Phac’s family met and declared to her husband and wife the land area, no papers. In 2001, Mr. Phac went to the newspaper and Mr. Nam went to work as a red book holder, so he was granted a land use right certificate in the name of Mr. Pham Gia Nam, so this land was the common property of the couple.

She requests to use the above house and land and pay half the value of land and property tr < span lang = “VI”> land for you Nam as the price that the Council has given the price given.

According to Mr. Nam: This parcel of his parents was extended to people in 1992, his parents only let their spouses stay, but not for If his family is still full of brothers. In 2001, he declared his own land papers, said he did not know. His view is to return the land to Mr. Phac.

According to Mr. Phac and Mrs. Tai (Mr. Nam’s parents): The origin of the land is his land allocated by Van Tao Commune People’s Committee relaxing people in 1992, he built a level 4 house on it. In 1993, his family let Nam and his wife, Hong, go there to make a living, not for the land because his wife was paralyzed for 15 years, he and him O n (Mr. Nam’s younger brother) must take care of the family’s wish to leave this land for him For n for you O n not yet available. When the family is granted land to relax, the family has only 4 people: Mr., Mrs. Tai, Ms. Lu, Anh O n (while Mr. Nam has escaped from the locality) . When Ms. Hong asked for a divorce from Mr. Nam, she would know that had only known that Nam had been automatically named in the land since 2001. Now he and she ask Mr. Nam and Mrs. Hong return the land to you and your grandmother.

In addition, in the process of resolving the case, Ms. Hong also declared Mr. Nam to be granted a parcel of land by the Army Cadet Officer School I. with an area of ​​125m 2 in Thach That district, initially my sister c The u divided this land but then she did not ask for further resolution .

V owe debt: According to Mrs. Hong, the couple borrowed from Mrs. Hoang Thi Chu (her mother) 7.5 ch only gold 9999, borrowed from Ms. Do Thi Ngoc Ha her sister) a gold tree 9999, borrowed from Mr. Bui Van Dap VND 150,000,000, interest su t 1.25% / month, all of these loans are undocumented. She asked Mr. Nam to join her in paying the debts on.

According to Mr. Nam, spouses ch only owe Mrs. Chu 7.5 only gold, I already get 13.875.0 00 VND (equivalent to 3.75 gold only). As for other loans he did not know, he did not agree to pay at the request of Ms. Hong.

On November 3, 2010, the Valuation Council has valued assets as follows:

Land: 8 0 m 2 x 22,000,000 VND / m 2 = VND 1,760,000,000.

Housing: VND 475,865,000. Total asset value is: 2,235,865,000 VND.

At the first instance judgment No. 03/2011 / HNGD-ST on May 17, 2011, the People’s Court of Thuong Tin district, the city Hanoi street has decided:

1. V About husband and wife relationship: Ms. Do Thi Hong is divorced from Mr. Pham Gia Nam.

2. V Common children: Delivered Pham Huong Giang, born on August 14, 2000, for Mrs. Hong to be nurtured until adulthood. Temporarily postpone the cost of raising children for Mr. Nam until Mrs. Hong requests. Mr. Nam has the right to travel to visit the common children, no one is prevented.

3. Common property, effort to contribute: Confirm the house of 2 floors 1 tum and the whole project tr land plot number 63 map sheets 5 in Van Hoa commune Van Tao, Thuong Tin district, Hanoi city l a common property of Ms. Do Thi Hong and Mr. Pham Gia Nam is valued at VND 475,865,000.

4. Confirm land use right 80m 2 plot land of 63 map sheets 5 in Van Hoa, Van Tao commune, Thuong Tin district, city Hanoi belongs to Mr. Pham Gia Phac’s household. Forcing Ms. Do Thi Hong and Mr. Pham Gia Nam to return to Mr. Pham Gia’s household the right to use 80m 2 plot of 63 map sheets No. 5 in Van Hoa, Van Tao and districts. Thuong Tin, Hanoi city. Assigning households to If Mr. Pham Gia Phac is entitled to own all assets on this parcel of land, including two-storey houses and works on land. Forcing Mr. Pham Gia Phac to pay her Ms. Do Thi Hong and Mr. Pham Gia Nam each with VND 237,932,500.

5. Proposing the People’s Committee of Thuong Tin district to revoke the land use right certificate No. U060645 issued on December 21, 2001, bearing the name of Mr. Pham Gia Nam to carry out procedures to re-issue Mr. Pham Gia Phac when Mr. Phac had required.

6. Recognizing the willingness of Mr. Pham Gia Nam Cung to Do Thi Hong’s money is 800,000,000 VND.

7. Forced Do Do Th Hong must pay for Mr. Bui Van Answer the amount is 179,820,000 VND oh ng.

8. Other requests of Ms. Do Thi Hong.

In addition, the Court of First Instance also declared the legal costs and the right to appeal.

On May 19, 2011, Ms. Hong filed an appeal against the entire first instance verdict.

On May 24, 2011, Mr. Nam appealed not to agree to support Ms. Hong 800.0 00 000 co-create a place in the new . But at the appellate trial, Mr. Nam withdraws this appeal request.

At the appellate judgment No. 105/2011 / LHPT on August 30, 2011 and September 6, 2011 People’s Court of Hanoi street has decided:

Maintain the first sentence of marriage and family trial No. 03/2011 / HNGD-ST dated 17-5-201 1 of the People’s Court of Thuong Tin district, Hanoi city (as mentioned above).

In addition, the Court of Justice m also declares the charges. 

After the appellate trial, Ms. Hong and Ms. Hoang Thi Chu have an application to consider according to the cassation procedure for the Board. The appellate case says .

At Decision of audience g Decree No. 05/2013 / KN-HNGĐ-LDD January 3, 2013, the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court appealed against the marriage sentence for appellate number 105/2011 / LHPT on the 30th 8-2011 and September 6, 2011 of Hanoi People’s Court. Proposing the Civil Court of the Supreme People’s Court to conduct cassation review in the direction of: canceling the appeal family marriage marriage sentence and and the family marriage judgment Institutional number 03/2011 / HNGD-ST dated 17-5-2011 of People’s Court of Thuong Tin district, Hanoi city on the property relations section; hand over the file to the People’s Court of Thuong Tin district, Hanoi city for a first-instance trial according to the provisions of law.

At the trial of judges, grand n Vi n Supreme People’s Procuratorate said that for land in dispute, when granting land to relax people for Mr. Phac’s family, there was no Nam, there was no evidence that his parents gave his wife Nam’s husband, so the land is still owned by Mr. Phac’s family. The two-level court determined that the land of Nam’s parents was grounded. There is a wrong part of Ms. Zhou’s debt. Therefore, the proposal has The Trial Panel does not accept the appeal of the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court.

The board of directors of the Supreme People’s Court of Civil Court comments:

V In relation to common marriage and children, the Court at all levels has resolved, the litigants have no complaints. 

V about property relations: The assets that the parties dispute are 80m 2 in land Van Hoa village, Van Tao commune, Thuong Tin district, Hanoi city bear the name of Mr. Pham Gia Nam.

The document showing the origin of the above land area is owned by Pham Gia Phac, the People’s Committee of Van Tao Commune, Thuong Tin District. granting land for relaxing people in 1992. Based on the land handover minutes of the commune People’s Committee for Mr. Phac, when the land allocation record was issued, Ms. Hong was married to Mr. Nam. However, according to the verification of the Court of First Instance in Van Tao commune, Thuong Tin on the procedure of land allocation, Van Tao commune had a policy of granting land to relax people since 1991. Although the procedures for granting land and family Mr. Phac has only 4 people, Mr. Phác, Mrs. Tài, Ms Lu, Anh O n (because this time Mr. Nam has not returned to the local army), but the grant Residents’ land is to allocate land to large households and to Phác and his spouses, so Mr. Nam is also a land grantee. After receiving the land, Mr. Phac’s family built a 4-level house. In 1993, Mr. Phac’s family let his wife Nam and her husband come out on  d this area and you are the manager and user of the land continuously since then.

Ms. Hong said that family member Mr. Phac declared to the couple The above-mentioned land area, Mr. Phac and Mr. Nam affirmed that the family has not yet married.

Considering that: According to the verification of the People’s Committee of Van Tao commune, in 2001, the commune organized for the households in Van Tao commune. register for declaration to consider granting use right certificates and households declare at village headquarters (BL 103). All households in the commune are aware of this land declaration policy. Mr. Phac is the land owner but does not go to declare. Mr. Nam is on the ground and is the person who declares to carry out the certification procedure. On December 21, 2001, Mr. Nam was granted a land use right certificate No. U060645 under the name of Mr. Pham Gia Nam. They built a solid two-story house in 2002 and in 2005 built a tumble on the third floor. Mr. Phác and his brothers and sisters knew about the construction of the couple Nam and Hong. , but no one has any idea. Thus, since the certificate was issued (2001) until the divorce of Mr. Nam, Ms. Hong (2009), Mr. is Mr. Phac also Who has any complaints about this land allocation or construction. This shows the will of Mr. Phac’s family to give Mr. Nam and Mrs. Hong the above-mentioned land area. Therefore, the fact that Mr. Phac and Mr. Nam claimed that Mr. Nam arbitrarily declared the land papers, Mr. Phac did not know that there was no basis for acceptance. Thus, there are grounds to determine Ms. Hong’s testimony about the fact that Mr. Phac’s family gave the landlord to , which is reasonable.

Therefore, the Court of all levels judged that Mr. Nam went to work in the land of Mr. Phac who did not know and the fact that Mrs. Hong declared her family Husband has for husband and wife but there is no evidence to determine the land area of ​​80m 2 in Van Ho village a , Van Tao commune, hu y in Thuong Tin, Hanoi city is the property of Mr. Pham Gia Phac’s household; At the same time, forcing Mr. Nam, Ms. H  to return the land to the family If , Mr. Phac is not right. It is necessary to identify the disputed land area as the common property of Mr. Nam’s husband, Ms. Hong and when sharing, consider Nam to have a lot of contribution at n to divide each party’s effort and should base on the need for accommodation to divide the objects to ensure the interests of the parties.

For content of complaints of Ms. Hoan g Thi Chu (mother’s mother Hong ), found that: On May 7, 2011 (before the hearing of the first instance), Ms. Chu sent an application to the People’s Court of Thuong Tin district, content: “Today is May 7, 2011, I have Get the money you pay me. I have no problem g the Court resolves again “. The first-instance court declared the fund for the advance of Ms. Zhou’s court fee (VND 200,000), but did not declare to suspend the settlement of Ms. Zhou’s request for debt collection, which is contrary to the provisions at Point d. Clause 1, Article 192 of the Civil Procedure Code. However, after the trial of first instance, Ms. Chu did not appeal and the Procuracy did not protest, so the Appellate Trial Panel was based. Article 263 of the Civil Procedure Code only reviewed the part of the judgment , the first instance decision has an appeal or appeal or is related to the review of the appeal or protest content, so the appeal of the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court to the above content is not necessary.

Therefore, the Trial Panel of the Director of the Civil Court of the Supreme People’s Court considers resistance span lang = “VI”> of Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court for the disputed property of Mr. Nam and Ms. Hong (is 80m 2 land in Van Hoa village, Van Tao commune, Thuong Tin district, Hanoi), is acceptable.

For the above reasons, pursuant to Clause 2 of Article 291; Clause 3 of Article 297 and Article 299 of the Civil Procedure Code;

DECISION

Cancel the appellate family marriage judgment No. 105/2011 / LH-PT on August 30, 2011 and September 6-9 2011 of Hanoi People’s Court and the first instance family marriage judgment No. 03/2011 / HNGĐST n g on May 17, 2011 of the People’s Court Thuong Tin district, Hanoi city about the area The n property relationship, solved the “Divorce” case between the plaintiff, Ms. Do Thi Hong and the defendant is Mr. Pham Gia Nam;

Hand over the case file to the Court â n People in Thuong Tin district, the city Hanoi street adjudicates again under the provisions of law.

SHORT CONTENT

“According to the verification of the People’s Committee of Van Tao commune, in 2001, the commune organized for households in Van Tao commune. post  Italy declare to consider certification certificate o use and households declare at village headquarters (BL 103). All households in the commune are aware of this land declaration policy. Mr. Phac is the land owner but does not go to declare. Mr. Nam is on the ground and is the person who declares to fill in the procedures for granting documents st. receives. On December 21, 2001, Mr. Nam was granted a land use right certificate s U060645 in the name of the household ng  Pham Gia Nam. They built a two-story house in in 2002 and in 2005 built a third floor tum. Mr. Phac and his brothers Nam’s family members know the construction of his wife oh ng Nam Anh Hong, but also no one has </ span > idea What to do. Thus, the word when granted gi certificate (2001) until work l the marriage of Mr. Nam and Ms. H oh ng (2009), nobody’s family has anyone complaints about land and house construction. That shows the will of Mr. Phac’s family to Mr. Nam and Ms. H oh area soil  above. Therefore, the fact that Mr. Phac and Mr. Nam declared that Mr. Nam himself meant declared land papers, Mr. Phac did not know that there was no mortgage basis receive. Thus, there are grounds to determine Ms Hong’s testimony that Mr. Phac’s family gave them the land area, which is reasonable.

Therefore, the decision of the Court at all levels that Mr. Nam went to work in the land of Mr. Phac did not know and that Mrs. Hong Declaration of husband’s family gave husband and wife un g without proof to determine the land area of ​​80m 2  in Van Hoa village, Van Tao commune, Thuong Tin district, Hanoi city is the property of Mr. Pham Gia Phac’s household; At the same time, forcing Mr. Nam and Mrs. Hong to return the land to Mr. Phac’s family, which is not true, it is necessary to determine the area of ​​the disputed land as a common property of Mr. Nam’s husband and wife, and Mrs. Hong and when he must share him. effort yes donations o u more than to divided by the effort of m all i side and need It must be based on the demand for the in order to divide the objects for the parties to ensure the interests of the litigants. “

Judgment number 04/2016 / AL 

Approved April 6, 2016 by the Supreme People’s Court Judge and published under Q list s number 220 / QD-CA April 6, 2016 of Chief Supreme People’s Court project.

Case law:

Jurisdictional decision No. 04/2010 / QD-HDTP dated March 3, 2010 of the Council of Judges of the Dark People’s Court High on the case of “Dispute of land use right transfer contract” in Hanoi city between the plaintiff, Mrs. Kieu Thi Ty, Mr. Chu Van Tien with the defendant is g Le Van Ngu; People with related rights and obligations are Ms. Le Thi Quy, Ms. Tran Thi Phan, Mr. Le Van Tam, Ms. Le Thi Tuong, Mr. Le Duc Loi, Ms. Le Thi Duong, Mr. Le Manh Hai and Ms. Le Thi Nham.

Overview of the content of the case law:

Where a house is a common property of a husband and wife, there is only one person named h burial transfer the land and housing to another person, the other does not sign the contract; if there are sufficient grounds to determine that the transferor has received enough money as agreed, the non-signer in the contract knows and uses the land transfer money; the land transferee has received and managed and used the house and land has publicly; The person who does not sign the contract knows that without any objection, he or she must determine that the person agrees with the house transfer.

Rules of law regarding case law:

– Clause 2 Article 176 of the Civil Code 1995;

– Article 15 of the Marriage and Family Law of 1986.

Keyword of case law:

“Land use right transfer contract dispute”; “D have take over the common property of husband and wife”; “Establish ownership by agreement”.

CASE CONTENT

At the petition filed on November 5, 2007 and the process of resolving the case, original case n is Mrs. Kieu Thi Ty presenting:

In 1996, she and her husband bought 02 grade 4 houses on a residential area of ​​about 160m 2 of Mr. Le Van Ngu’s family in Xuan La commune, Tu Liem district, Hanoi city (now is Group 11, Cluster 2, Xuan La ward, Tay Ho district, Hanoi city). The sale and purchase of the two parties have made a contract, clearly stating the properties, houses on the land and the adjacent faces of the land plot. Due to the absence of a married couple u residing in Hanoi, so regular about n local does not confirm trading between her family and Mr. Ngu’s family. The price is 110 gold trees, she has tr enough for my wife oh ng Ngu and Mr. Ngu’s family have delivered house, land for her to manage and use.

After buying and selling real estate, g Mr. Ngu’s family builds a new house to borrow her husband and wife house (inside) to use and store materials, while the house area facing Xuan La street, she gave her grandson to go to school. When Ngu’s family finished his house, he returned the house and land to her. She demolished the old house, built the foundation and built a new house like this for the children to live in; in 2001, she rented a carpentry workshop, then she did not rent anymore, closed it unused.

2006 (after she imported to Hanoi), when she applied for a certificate of house ownership and rights using residential land, Mr. Ngu’s husband has caused difficulties, because he thinks that she still lacks more than 3 gold trees and he and his wife only sell houses and land inside, while houses and land facing Xuan La street are still houses and land. of family you. At the end of 2006, Mr. Ngu arbitrarily broke the door in and built a dividing wall between the eaves of the level 4 house facing Xuan La street (currently giving others a barber shop). She asked the Court to force Mr. Ngu’s family to comply with the contract signed and forced his family to pay the land (the surface area at Spring La).

The defendant is Mr. Le Van Ngu presented:

In 1996, his family sold a part of the house and land to Mr. Tien and Mrs. Ty. The two sides agreed, his family sold to Mr. and Mrs. Ti to n, Mrs Ty part of the house, the land is adjacent to Xuan La road, 07m wide, and </ span> about the length of his family’s miserable land. The two parties agree to subtract 21m 2 the road surface which has been marked by the road of the state, so we only sell level 4 under The n area of ​​land is 140m 2 .

Price for buying houses and land is 6 for only gold / m 2 for 42m 2 </ sup > Road surface is 25 02 trees only; 9 only / m 2 for 98m 2 the inner land is 88.2 gold trees. A total of 113.4 gold trees, Mr. Tien’s and Mrs. Ty’s family paid 110 gold trees to his family and owed 3.4 gold trees.

His family has handed over the house and land to Mrs Ty but there are 21m 2 facing the road, in the boundary. paving the way, his family still manages and uses it. Currently, the State has changed the plan, not in the span of the road to the house and land of his family, so this area is under the management and use of His family, the area of ​​houses and land of Mr. Tien and Mrs. Ty bought no way in.

She now asks for 21m 2 on the side of Xuan La Street, he does not accept. If Mr. Tien and Mrs. Ty want to manage, use the area of ​​the road surface and have access to the house, the land inside must be cut tr she for his family 2m in the afternoon across the road surface and the length of the miserable land, at the same time, must pay o span “=” VI “> project to pay his family another VND 160 million.

People with related rights and obligations:

Ms. Tran Thi Phan agrees with Mr. Ngu’s testimony.

Mr. Le Duc Loi, Mr. Le Van Tam, Mr. Le Manh Hai, Ms. Le Thi Duong, Ms. Le Thi Tuong and Ms. Le Thi Nham have unanimous testimony to Mr. Ngu’s testimony.

At the first instance civil judgment number 27/2008 / DS-ST day April 25, 2008, Hanoi People’s Court decided:

Accept love c u sue to reclaim the land house 23.4m 2 at 39 Xuan La street of the couple Kieu Thi Ty and Mr. Chu Van Tien for the family of Mr. Le Van Ngu and Mrs. Tran Thi Phan.

Forcing Mr. Le Van Ngu’s family, Mrs. Tran Thi Phan, Ms. Le Thi Quy (tenant) and his children, Le Van Ngu must return all the land area of ​​23.4m 2 at No. 39, Xuan La Street, Xuan La Ward, Tay Ho District to Mrs. Ty’s family, Mr. Tien (represented by Ms. Ty) .

Forcing Ms. Ty to pay Mr. Ngu’s family an amount of VND 13,759,000 worth of construction and renovation at an area of ​​23 , 4m 2 ; Ms. Ty owns the material for this area.

Ms. Ty is proactive in opening the entrance to the housing area inside and being built to block the aisle to Mr. Ngu’s land. Ms. Phan.

Mr. Ngu, Mrs. Phan together with Mrs. Ty is responsible for returning to the competent state agency to span lang = “VI” t procedure to name ph The n houses have been sold. N For u on the side of Mr. Ngu’s family, it is difficult for Ms. Ty to take the initiative to declare to the competent state agency to carry out procedures to change her name and register the rights home ownership and land use.

In addition, the Court of First Instance also decides on the legal costs and the right to appeal of the litigants. 

On May 8, 2008, Mr. Le Van Ngu and Mrs. Tran Thi Phan had petitions of appeals c u The Court of Appeal announces to cancel the house and land transfer contract signed with Mrs. Kieu Thi Ty and Mr. Chu Van Tien on the grounds of signing contracts, receiving money to buy houses and land only. by Mr. Ngu, Mrs. Phan is an unknown wife.

In Decision No. 02 / QD-VKSNDTC-VPT 1 dated 28-5- 2008, Institute in ng The Supreme People’s Procuratorate appealed to the Trial Council of the Appellate Court of the Supreme People’s Court in Hanoi for appellate trial Mr. Ngu had to dismantle the illegal construction on the land area of ​​Ms. Ty to return to the original state u. Ms. Ty must not compensate Mr. Ngu for the amount of VND 13,759,000; At the same time, he proposed to review the first instance court fee for Mr. Ngu and Mrs. Ty.

At the appellate civil judgment No. 162/2008 / DS-PT on September 4, 2008, the Court of Appeal of the People’s Court supreme in Hanoi y decided not to accept the appeal of Mr. Le Van Ngu and Mrs. Tran Th with Ph The n, accepting the Appeal Decision No. 02 / QD-VKSNDTC-VPT1 on May 28, 2008 of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, fixing a part of the first sentence Review as follows:

Accept the request to reclaim the house, land with an area of ​​23.4m 2 at 39 Xuan La Street of Mrs. Kieu Thi Ty and Mr. Chu Van Tien for the couple Mr. Le Van Ngu and Mrs. Tran Thi Phan.

Forcing Mr. Ngu, Mrs. Phan and his children Ngu and Mrs. Phan to include: Le Duc Loi, Le Van Tam and Le Manh Hai and her sisters: Le Thi Duong, Le Thi Tuong, Le Thi Nham and Mrs. Le Thi Quy (Mr. Ngu’s tenant) must return the entire area of ​​the house and land to 23.4m 2 sup at 39 Xuan La Street, Xuan La Ward, Tay Ho District, Hanoi City for the couple Mrs. Kieu Thi Ty and Mr. Chu Van Tien (represented by Ms. Ty).

V value of construction, renovation at an area of ​​23.4m 2 is VND 13,759,000, Le Van Ngu and his wife, Tran Thi Phan, had to bear their own. Mr. Ngu and Mr. Phan had to dismantle the construction and renovation part of the area to return the status quo to Mrs. Ty and Mr. Tien. Chi ph í demolition caused by Mr. Ngu and Mrs. Phan’s couple.

Ms. Ty has the right to take the initiative to open the entrance to the inner area of ​​the house and land and to build a back passage to the house and land of Mr. Ngu and Mrs. Phan.

Mr. Ngu, Ms. Phan together with Ms. Ty is responsible to the competent state agency to complete the procedure to the section name home, the land was sold to the couple Ms. Ty and Mr. Tien. N For u Ngu’s family has caused difficulties, Mrs. Ty has been proactive to the competent state agency to declare and carry out procedures to register the rights using residential land and house ownership.

In addition, the Court of Appeal decides on court fees.

After appellate trial on complaints dated October 21, 2008 and on October 22, 2008 of Mr. Ngu, Phan said that houses and land at No. 39 Xuan La Street are the common property of the family grandparents; Mr. Ngu was willing to sell himself to Mrs. Ty and his wife, Mr. Tien, without the consent of Mrs. Phan; propose to declare b this contract is invalid.

In Decision No. 63 / QD-KNGĐT-V5 on May 14, 2009, the institute g The Supreme People’s Procuratorate has appealed the above Court of Appeal and asked the Supreme People’s Court Judges to adjudicate according to the procedure of the director’s review. and cancel the first instance civil judgment No. 27/2008 / DS-ST dated April 25, 2008 of the Hanoi People’s Court; hand over the case file to Hanoi People’s Court for preliminary trial span lang = “VI” m again. With judgment:

In 1996, Mr. and Mrs. Chu Van Tien and Mrs. Kieu Thi Ty bought two grade 4 houses on their residential land area. Xuan La street is 7m wide, the length of miserable land of Mr. Le Van Ngu’s family in Xuan La commune, Tu Liem district (now Xuan La ward, Tay Ho district). The two sides have made handwritten papers to buy and sell real estate, but then do not follow the procedures prescribed by law. After buying, Ms. Ty broke both houses on the street to reworked, rebuilt the foundation, rebuilt the foundation, and the roofing wall like today. At the end of 2005, when Ms. Ty proposed to apply for a certificate of house ownership and land use rights, she had but Mr. Ngu disputed for that Mrs. Ty owed 3.4 gold trees and only sold the land area inside, and the land area facing Xuan La is still his family’s house.

At the end of 2006, the two sides happened to rush to dispute the land area dispute 2 1 m 2 on the side of Xuan La street, Tay Ho district, Hanoi city.

On October 29, 2007, Ms. Kieu Thi Ty and Mr. Chu Van Tien sued to claim property ownership through a purchase contract. House and land sale was established on April 26, 1996 between Le Van Ngu and his wife, Tran Thi Phan and her husband and wife Kieu Thi Ty, Mr. Chu Van Tien. Real estate contract between Mrs. Ty and Mr. Tien and Mr. Ngu and Mrs. Phan, they have not complied with the provisions of the law in terms of form and content of the contract; while Ngu’s family believed that Mr. Tien and Mrs. Ty were still owed 3.4 million y gold and did not sell the land area facing Xuan La street; so my wife oh ng Ngu, Mrs. Ph the n disagree for Mr. Tien and Mr. Ty and his wife continue to register the house ownership and land use rights in accordance with the law. Currently, the entire land and housing area under the transfer and sale contract still stands in the name of Mr. Ngu and Mrs. Phan.

Court of two first instance and appellate cases determines the legal relationship in dispute in this case is “House ownership dispute.” land ”and the application of Articles 255 and 256 of the Civil Code to accept the request to reclaim land and house of Mrs. Kieu Thi Ty and his wife, Mr. Chu Van Tien, with Mr. Le Van Ngu and Mrs. Tran Thi Phan is not correct, so it is natural to recognize the ownership of residential houses and land use rights for the entire land area transferred to the couple, Mrs. Ty and Mr. Tien; While the contract of land and housing transfer is still disputed, it is not possible to carry out the procedures to name, register the ownership of houses and the right to use d. at for the couple Ms. Ty and Mr. Tien. Therefore, it is necessary to cancel both the first instance and appellate civil judgments mentioned above; hand over the first instance trial to determine the legal relationship between disputes, ensure the interests of the parties and the interests of the State.

At the cassation trial, the representative of the Supreme People’s Procuracy requests the Supreme People’s Court Judges Council to accept receive the institute’s appeal at g Supreme People’s Procuratorate.

Assembly oh ng Court Judge Supreme People’s Project identified:

Based on this thanks to kh in I sued on November 5, 2007 and the testimony of Ms. Ty, Mr. Tien in the process of resolving the case, Ms. Ty and Mr. Tien requested Mr. Ngu, Mrs. Phan to return the entire house and land that he She received the transfer of Mr. Ngu, Mrs. Phan was occupied by Ngu and his wife and requested Mr. Ngu, she removed the illegal construction on the land. Thus, the plaintiff asked for ownership of the house, the land Mr. Ngu and Ms. Phan had transferred under the house and land transfer contract dated April 26, 1996. Meanwhile, Mr. Ngu, Mrs. Phan said that the land with the dispute still belonged to his grandparents, because his grandparents had not transferred to Mrs. Ty, Mr. Tien. Therefore, there is a basis to identify the litigants disputing property rights and disputes over land and house transfer contracts, but the Court of First Instance and Appeal only determines the legal relationship to be solved. case of house and land ownership dispute is not yet y is enough. However, in reality the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal m has considered settling on These two relationships p. Therefore, the Appeal No. 63 / QD-KNGĐT-V5 dated 14 May 2009 of the Chairman of the Supreme People’s Procuracy said that the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal determined the wrong legal relationship. having a dispute and needing to cancel both of the above judgments to reconsider according to the first instance procedure is not accurate and unnecessary.

V about the house and land sale and purchase contract on April 26, 1996: The transfer of houses and land took place from 1996, after When buying a house, land, Mr. Tien, Ms. Ty paid in full on n, received a house, respected the ground, repaired the house and let the children go to in . Meanwhile, Mr. Ngu and Mrs. Phan’s family still at on the remaining land area, adjacent to Mr. Tien’s and Mrs. Ty’s houses. According to the testimony of the peasants g Ngu, Mrs. Phan after selling the house and land to Mrs Ty , Mr. Ngu and Mrs. Phan distributed gold to their children. On the other hand, after transferring and handing over the land and house to Mr. Tien and Mrs. Ty, on April 26, 1996, Mr. Ngu also wrote a “commitment letter” with content borrowed from houses have been transferred to the house when rebuilding the house on the remaining land and in fact, Ms. Phan and Mr. Ngu couple used the land of Mrs. Ty, Mr. Tien when building the house. Thus, there is a basis to determine that Mrs. Phan knew that there was a transfer of houses and land between Mr. Ngu and Mr. Tien and Mrs. Ty and Mrs. Phan agreed, so they made the complaint that Mr. Ngu transferred Land concessions for Mrs Ty and her husband and wife do not know is unfounded.

During the process of resolving the case, Mr. Ngu, Ms. Phan also said that the price of buying and selling houses and land was 113.4 gold trees. However, they did not provide evidence for this issue. According to the contents of the house and land contract, on April 26, 1996, the amount of the two parties agreed was 110 gold trees and in the payment voucher on May 9, 2000, Mr. Ngu signed to confirm “I have received enough the remaining amount due to selling houses and land to Mr. Tien and Ms. Ty … ”. The note has additional notes, the total amount of gold I received before and now is 110. Thus, there is enough basis to confirm that the price of buying and selling real estate is 110 gold trees and Mr. Ngu and Mrs. Phan have received enough money.

Although the land and housing contracts mentioned above do not show specific areas of land transfer, the two parties agree the quartet boundary “across the land is 07m from the edge of the dividing wall with Mr. Tay’s house; Northeast borders Xuan La – Xuan Dinh street; Southeast borders on the land of Mr. Le Van Tay; Southwest borders on the land of Mrs. Le Thi Thuat and Mr. Vinh; The North West borders the remaining land of Mr. Ngu’s family. The length of the land borders Xuan La – Xuan Dinh road to the end of the land … “.

In addition, the parties still agree, and the land in front of the state is used for road construction, Mr. Tien enjoys the whole Compensation regime of the State. Thus, the land plot that the two parties agreed to transfer is from the edge of the road Xuan La – Xuan Dinh to the end of the land including disputed land.

Therefore, the Court of all levels determines that the area of ​​23.4m 2 is adjacent to Xuan La – Xuan road. The peak was in the land area that Mr. Ngu had agreed to transfer to Mrs. Ty and at the same time determined that Mrs. Ty and her husband had paid 110 gold trees under the contract and received the land, from there, forced the family. Mr. Ngu had to return the entire area of ​​houses, land 23.4m 2 at No. 39 Xuan La Street, Xuan La Ward, Tay Ho District, Hanoi City to the couple and Mrs. Kieu Thi Ty and Mr. Chu Van Tien is grounded.

B in i above, based on clause 3 Article 291, clause 1 Article 297 of the Civil Procedure Code,

DECISION

Not accepting the Appeal No. 63 / QD-KNGĐT-V5 dated 14-5-2009 by the Head of the Supreme People’s Procuracy ; uphold the Appellate judgment No. 162/2008 / DS-PT on September 4, 2008 of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme People’s Court in Hanoi.

SHORT CONTENT

“V about house and land sale and purchase contracts on April 26, 1996: Jobs u change u the number of houses and land that takes place from the year 1996, after buying a house, land, Mr. Tien, Mrs. T Italy her enough money, receive housing, respect the ground, repair the house and let the children e n stay. Meanwhile, Ngu’s family and Mrs. Phan are still on the remaining land area, adjacent to Mr. Tien and Mr. Phan Italy . According to the testimony of the children of Ngu, Mrs. Ph n, after selling the house, the land to the couple T , Mr. Nguyen has divided gold for children . On the other hand, after i transfer and hand over the land and house to Mr. Ti e n, Mrs. Ty on April 26, 1996, Mr. Nguyen wrote “commitment letter” with contents re-borrowed Real estate has been transferred to the house when rebuilding the house on the remaining land and in fact, Ms. Phan and Mr. Nguyen husband and wife have used n house of Mrs. Ty, Mr. Tien when building a house. Thus, there is a basis to determine that Mrs. Phan knows there is a transfer of houses and land between Mr. Ngu and his wife Mr. Tien and Mrs Ty , Ms. Phan n already oh idea, I should do the work of Mrs. Phan when I complain said that Mr. Ngu transferred house and land to the couple T Italy she did not know that there was no ground. “

Case law No. 05/2016 / AL

Approved April 6, 2016 by the Supreme People’s Court Judge and published under Decision No. 220 / QD- CA April 6, 2016 of Chief Justice of the People’s Court No. i high.

Case law:

Jurisdictional decision No. 39/2014 / DS-GĐT dated 09-10-2014 of the Council of Judges of the Dark People’s Court high on the “Inheritance dispute” case in Ho Chi Minh City between plaintiff Mrs. Nguyen Thi Thuong, Mrs. Nguyen Th with Spring with defendant Nguyen At the end (Cesar Trai Nguyen), Ms. Nguyen could n Beasts y Phuong, Mrs. Nguyen Thi Bich Dao; Nguyen Thi Xe and Nguyen Chi Dat (Dan fo rth Chi Nguyen), Nguyen Thuan Ly, Nguyen Thi Tran i span lang = “VI” Nguyen Chi Duc, Nguyen Thi Thu y Loan, Pham Thi Lien, Pham Thi Vui, Tran Duc Thuan, Tran Thanh Khang. 

Overview of the content of the case law:

In a case of inheritance disputes, there is a person who is entitled to a part of inheritance and has a great contribution on the management and renovation of inheritance but do not agree to the division of inheritance (because it is assumed that the statute of limitations for initiating a lawsuit has expired), there is no specific requirement for considering their contributions. on the management and renovation of inheritance; If the Court decides to divide the inheritance for inheritance, then it must consider their contribution because of the request u do not divide the inheritance for the legacy Larger design requires consideration of effort.

Law provisions li n case law:

Item 1 Article 5 and Article 218 of the 2004 Civil Procedure Code;

Keyword of case law:

“Request to sue”; “Request response number “; “Effort to contribute to the management and renovation of inheritance” .

CASE CONTENT

At the petition on July 18, 2008 and in the process of resolving the case, Ms. Nguyen Thi Thuong, Mrs. Nguyen Thi Xuan submitted Present: Their parents are Nguyen Van Hung (died in 1978), Le Thi Nguyen (ch in t in 1992) has 06 children, Mrs. Nguyen Thi Xuan, Mr. Nguyen Chi Trai, Mrs. Nguyen Thi Xuan, Mrs. Nguyen and , Mrs. Nguyen Thi Tran i nh and Mr. Nguyen Chi a i . Umbrella ng Trai has his wife, Mr. Thi Manh and has 05 children, Mr. Nguyen Thuan Ly, Mr. Nguyen Thuan Huy, and Mrs. Nguyen Thi Q with i Duong, Nguyen Chi Dat (born in 1966) and Mr. Nguyen Chi Dat (born 1968). In Decision No. 413/2008 on March 31, 2008, the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City announced Mr. Trai and Mrs. Manh, Mr. Thuan Huy, Ms. Q with no span = lang ” i Duong, Nguyen Chi Dat (born 1968) is dead.

House No. 263 Tran B Street nh Trong, Ward 4, District 5, Ho Chi Minh City was co-ordinated by Mr. Hung and Mr. Ngu, who were handed over land by Mr. Dao Thanh Phung in 1953, until 1966 th . two houses for construction. Real estate has not been granted certification certificate about n house ownership, rules about land use, ch only newly declared in 1999. Specifically, Mr. Nguyeb refuses We do not leave a will, the current house is owned by Mrs. Nguyen Thi Thu y Phuong is the son of Nguyen Chi Trai who is managing. In the management process, Ms. Phuong hired Ms. Nguyen Thi Bich Dao to rent a room n house to make a bakery. When Phuong is here to repair the house, it is not significant. Mr. and Mrs. Trai and his wife have no contribution. For on construction and repair because he went to reform, while his wife, Trai’s wife, had no career, and the child was still young. There is no income to have money to contribute. If Ms. Phuong has evidence to prove the cost of repairs and requests, she will release .

The originals thanks to asking to divide the inheritance of this house according to qu </ span > y the law and ask to receive a home, refunding money for other inheritance. Ms. Phuong is not an inheritance, so she has to return the house and does not agree to support Ms. Phuong to go elsewhere.

Being Thanks to , Ms. Nguyen Thi Thuy Phuong presented: She agreed to be in charge family system. Her father is Mr. Nguyen Chi Trai, her mother, Nguyen Thi Tu has 03 children including her sister, Mr. Nguyen Chi Duc, Ms. Nguyen Thi Thu y Loan (Mr. Duc, sister Loan currently lives in Canada). The house of 263 Tran Binh Trong Street is owned by her grandparents since 1953, when it was a tile house and a wall. In 1955, her father married her mother and her parents stayed in this house. In 1978 her father left for the United States, her mother died in 1980. She lived in this house from a young age, repaired the house many times such as making aluminum doors, building a mezzanine wall, and tiling terraces, building wall behind the house. She has inheritance from her father because in 2006 her father set up a paper to break the legacy of her inheritance in Vietnam, so she received the inheritance that her father’s father inherited from Hung. She did not agree with the plaintiffs’ requests, because the time limit for the inheritance was over, she and her two children now live in this house. She hired a part of the house for Mrs. Nguyen Thi Bich Dao to make a bakery, and she and Mrs. Dao will work together on the renting.

Being the is Mr. Nguyen Chi Trai t r Presentation: At the document on October 14, 2009, Mr. Trai had a request for to propose the content on April 25, 2006, he had a paper off his inheritance property for Ms. Phuong to enjoy the inheritance inherited from her parents in Vietnam, now he would like to cancel the text In this writing, he authorized Mrs. Thuong, Mrs. Xuan on behalf of him at the Court, when the Court finished his inheritance proceedings, he was given to his son Nguyen Chi Duc, currently residing in Canada.

After the first instance trial, on April 22, 2010, Mr. Trai has an Application to report on the content he does not agree to divide inheritance. At 263 Tran Binh Trong house, after assigning Phuong to continue to look after her, he and his wife had the effort to contribute money to this house. But on July 14, 2010, Mr. Trai had a text that stated that he gave his son, Nguyen Chi Duc, his share of his inheritance. On March 11, 2011, Mr. Trai had a report on contents, he agreed with the decision of the first instance verdict, he did not appeal.

Persons with related obligations:

– Ms. Nguyen Thi Trinh (being a daughter of Hung, and instrumental Ngu) presents: She is unified as presented by the plaintiffs in charge. family system and property origin. In 1966 the house was damaged, her parents repaired the house with the contributions of the children, including her, but she did not ask for the part of her contribution. Ms. Phuong said that her parents and her sister contributed to repairing the house. She suggested k to her inheritance to Mrs. Xuan and Ms. Thuong; propose Ms. Dao and Phuong to return the house.

– Mr. Nguyen Chi Dat (born in 1966), Mr. Nguyen Thuan Ly presented: Your parents are Mr. Nguyen Chi Trai and Mrs. Mr. Thi Manh and his three younger siblings all died at sea when they crossed the border in 1982. They agreed with the plaintiff’s opinion about dividing inheritance, asking to inherit Mr. Hung’s assets and tools. Ngu and assigned Ms. Thuong, Mrs. Xuan to manage.

– Ms. Nguyen Thi Xe (the son of Specific Hung, the instrument of Ngu) agrees with the grandmother y of plaintiffs about family relations and requests of plaintiffs, k I inheritance she gets for her 2 children, Pham Thi Vui and Pham Thi Lien.

– Testimony of Mrs. Nguyen Thi Thu y Loan, Mr. Nguyen Chi Duc follows the paper authorized on May 21, 2007 (having been legalized by the consulate), Ms. Loan and Mr. Duc authorized Ms. Phuong to decide all matters relating to disputes or division of property and land in Vietnam Male (This authorization letter was produced by Ms. Phuong following the application of Ms. Phuong dated March 25, 2011, after the trial of first instance).

Ms. Loan has an application (enclosed with a power of attorney) with contents asking for absence of session t ò August 13, 2009. V about disputed properties her parents have money to contribute, and other uncles do not contribute anything. After 1975, everyone went away, only Phuong was with her grandparents, asked the Court to let Phuong stay at the disputed land.

At the first instance civil judgment No. 3363/2009 / DSST on November 18, 2009, Ho Chi Minh City People’s Court decision:

– Determining housing at 263 Tran Binh Trong is the inheritance of Nguyen Van Hung, Le Th Ngu; every inheritance period is damaged in ng is 10,655,687,000: 6 = 1,775,947,800 VND oh

– Forcing Ms. Phuong’s mother and Mrs. Dao to return the land to dispute for Ms. Thuong and Mrs. Xuan. Ms. Thuong and Ms. Xuan are responsible for paying other heirs with the money they receive.

– Note the review Nguyen Chi Trai for his son Nguyen Chi Duc take part in your inheritance.

On November 30, 2009, Ms. Nguyen Thi Thu y Phuong has an appeal There is content for r ng Hung, the tool Ngu has died for more than 10 years so the time limit to sue for inheritance is no longer.

On March 15, 2011, Ms. Phuong has a thanks to additional internal appeal Content:

span lang = “VI”> – Father ch with is Mr. Trai not agreeing to share and agree to let her manage this house. The co-inheritors do not have a document confirming that the dispute is a shared property. Her parents and their children, including her, have lived stably for more than 50 years in this house, have preserved and preserved the house but now force her mother and daughter to leave the house without understanding.

At the appellate civil judgment No. 116/2011 / DS-PT on May 10, 2011, the Court of Appeal of the People’s Court Supreme in Ho Chi Minh City decides: Maintain the first instance judgment.

On June 16, 2011, Ms. Nguyen Thi Thuy Phuong has a thanks for suggestions Civil judgment judge appellate mentioned above.

In Decision No. 158/2014 / KN-DS dated May 6, 2014, the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court protested Civil judgment of the appellate mentioned above; propose to the Assembly oh ng The Supreme People’s Court Judge adjusts the cassation director to cancel the above-mentioned civil judgment and the first instance civil judgment of No. 3363 / 2009 / DSST on November 18, 2009 of the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City; hand over the case file to the Ho Chi Minh City People’s Court for trial of first instance according to law provisions.

At the cassation trial, the representative of the Supreme People’s Procuracy agrees to protest the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court .

The Supreme People’s Court Judges’ Council says:

Nguyen Van Hung and his wife (ch have t in 1978), Le Thi Ngu (died in 1992) has 06 children including Mrs. Nguyen Thi Xe, Mr. Nguyen Chi Trai, Ms. Nguyen Thi Xuan, Ms. Nguyen Thi Thuong, Ms. Nguyen Thi Trinh and Mr. Nguyen Chi Trai. Mr. Nguyen Chi Trai and his wife There are 05 children in the span Thi Manh, Nguyen Thuan Ly, Nguyen Thuan Huy, Nguyen Thi Q . lang = “VI” i Duong, Mr. Nguyen Chi Dat (born in 1966), Mr. Nguyen Chi Dat (born 1968). Mr. Trai, Mrs. Manh, Mr. Huy, Ms. Duong and Mr. Nguyen Chi Dat (born 1968) were declared dead on March 31, 2008 according to the Decision No. 413/2008 dated March 31, 2008 of the People’s Court of Thanh Ho Chi Minh City.

Specifically, Ngự death is not leaving a will. The children of two girls and Ms. Phuong (Mr. Trai’s son) all admitted the house at 263 Tran Binh Trong Street, Ward 4, District 5, Ho Chi Minh City by Mr. Hung and Mr. Ngu, who were transferred by Mr. Dao Thanh Phung 1953 is the property of two creators, currently being managed and used by Ms. Phuong.

In 2008, Mrs. Xuan and Ms. Thuong sued to ask for the inheritance of Mr. Hung’s inheritance, and Mr. Nguyen left behind.

The litigants determine Mr. Trai’s residence in the US before July 1, 1991. The Court of First Instance and Appeal based on the Resolution of the National Assembly Standing Committee Resolution 1037/2006 / NQ-UBTVQH11 dated July 27, 2006, defines the statute of limitations for initiating a lawsuit against Mr. Hung’s legacy is still basis. As for Ngu’s legacy, the statute of limitations for initiating a lawsuit has been expired, but he and the co-inheritors of both are acknowledging that Ngu’s legacy is the common property of the undivided inheritance and all agreed to divide equally for the inheritance. Therefore, the Court of First Instance and Appeal is based on Sub-item a, Point 2.4, Section 2, Part I, Resolution No. 02/2004 / NQ-HDTP of August 10, 2004, of the Council of Supreme People’s Court Judges. guide the application of laws in dealing with civil, marriage and family cases to divide the part of Ngu’s legacy to base inheritance.

Mr. Hung died in 1978, according to regulations n h of the Marriage and Family Law When he passed away in 1959, he enjoyed a seventh century of Hung’s inheritance. The part of Mr. Trai’s property entitled to Hung’s wealth is the property g of Trai and his wife Tu Ms. Tu died in 1980, Mrs. Tu’s successors oh m Mr Trai and his three children, Trai, including Phuong. Thuy, Phuong enjoys a part of her mother’s assets, Mrs. Tu, but Mr. Trai has decided that the entire inheritance he inherited from Mr. Hung is not correct.

Ms. Phuong was born in 1953 and the parties identified Phuong as being at his home, she was a child from now until now. Since 1982, Ms. Phuong has been the head of household at this house, she still lives but in other places, Ms. Thu in transferred here from 1979 but not here, so Phuong has directly managed and used disputed real estate since the death of Nguyen. Other litigants all have a stable place to live elsewhere. When dividing inheritance and common property, the Court of First Instance and Appeal does not consider creating conditions for Phuong to have a place to live, forcing Ms. Phuong to hand over the house to the plaintiffs, including the property rights of Phuong. In the the inheritance of the mother is Ms. Tu is inappropriate.

Although Phuong is not an inheritance of the first inheritance of Mr. Hung, he is the grandson of two tools and has much effort to manage, spent money on house repair but in the process of resolving the case, Ms. Phuong did not ask to consider the effort because Ms. Phuong said that the case had expired and divided the inheritance. land for inheritance. Thus, Ms. Phuong’s request to determine the benefits is greater than the need to consider the effort, but the Court of First Instance and Appeal has not considered the effort for Ms. Phuong to solve the unsatisfactory request. of the person.

For the reasons , based on clause 3 Article 297, paragraph 1, 2 Article 299 Amended and supplemented Civil Procedure Code 2011;

DECISION

Remove all of the appellate civil judgments No. 116/2011 / DS-PT dated 10 May 2011 of the Court of Appeal of the Court Supreme People in Ho Chi Minh City and cancel all Instance of First Instance No. 3363/2009 / DSST dated November 18, 2009 of the Ho Chi Minh City People’s Court on the case of financial inheritance disputes product between plaintiff Mrs. Nguyen Th has Rewards, Mrs. Nguyen Th has Spring with the defendant is Nguyen Thi Thuy Phuong and others with other related rights and obligations.

Hand over the case file to the Ho Chi Minh City People’s Court for trial of first instance according to the provisions of law.

SHORT CONTENT

“Hung died in 1978, according to the provisions of the Marriage and Family Law of 1959, he enjoyed 1 / 7 years of H inheritance inheritance u ng. The part of Mr. Trai’s assets is entitled to the gift of Mr. u ng is the common property of his wife Trai and Mrs Tu. Tu died in 1980, the inheritance of Tu’s grandparents was Mr Trai and his three children, Ms Tu, including Phuong.

Although Ms. Phuong kh box right Inheritance of the first inheritance of Specific Hung, Specific Ngu, but being the grandson of the two tools and has many management efforts, has spent on n repair houses but in qu asia submit solutions qu In case of listing the case, Ms. Phuong did not ask to consider the effort because Ms. Phuong said that g the case has expired, no Italy pay real estate for inheritance. Therefore, Ms. Phuong’s request to ask for the determination of benefits is great  require review v o effort, but the Court of First Instance and Appeal has not considered and tried to give Mrs. Phuong a thorough solution to the applicant’s request. ”

Case number 06/2016 / AL 

Approved April 6, 2016 by the Supreme People’s Court Judge and published under Decision No. 220 / QD- CA April 6, 2016 of Ch asia judgment of the Supreme People’s Court.

Case law:

Jurisdictional decision No. 100/2013 / GĐT-DS dated 12-8-2013 of the Council of Judges of the Dark People’s Court high on the “Inheritance dispute” case in Hanoi, between the first and is Mr. Vu Đ The defendant was Ms. Vu Thi Tien (aka Hien), Mrs. Vu Thi Hau; people with related rights and obligations include Mr. Vu Dinh Duong, Vu Thi C damp, Vu Thi Thao, Nguyen Thi Kim Oanh, Ha Thuy Linh. 

Overview of the content of the case law:

In a case of inheritance disputes, a person who is inherited from a foreign country, if the Court has conducted judicial trust, Cross evidence according to the provisions of the law but still cannot determine the address only of those people, the Court still resolves the plaintiff’s request; If the inheritance is determined, the inheritance and the heirs have no will, then the inheritance division shall be settled for the whole thanks to “span lang =” VI ” law; surplus assets k at of those who are absent, cannot identify places only will be temporarily handed over to those who live tr be managed by the country to later hand over to absent heirs.

Rules of law regarding case law:

– Article 93; Point d, Clause 1, Article 168 of the 2004 Civil Procedure Code;

– Articles 676 and 685 of the Civil Code 2005.

Keywords of project l :

“Inheritance disputes”; “The heir in a foreign country does not know the address”; “Judicial authorization”; “Legacy division”; “Heritage management”.

CASE CONTENT

According to the petition in July 1993, the plaintiff, Mr. Vu Dinh Hung presented:

His parents are Vu Dinh Quang and Nguyen Thi Thanh is born with 6 children, Mr. Vu Dinh Duong and Mrs. Vu Thi Hau moisture, Ms. Vu Thi Thao, Mr. Vu Dinh Hung , Ms. Vu Thi Tien and Mrs. Vu Thi Hau. Mr. Quang and Mr. Tien h created a house No. 66, Dong Xuan Street, Hoan Kiem District, Hanoi, face í ch 123m 2 . In 1979, Quang died without a will, the house was built T h o nh and 3 children were he  Hung , Mrs. Hau and Mrs Tien stay; Mr. Duong, Ms. Thao and Mrs. C all went abroad. At the meeting of the family meeting on October 28, 1982, the instrument Widely and he, Mrs. Tien and Mrs. Hau agreed to temporarily divide the house into 3 parts for Mr. and Mrs. Hau and Ms. Tien used. In 1987, Thieu died. Later in 1989, Ms. Tien stealthily sold the part of the house temporarily divided to Mrs. Nguyen to n Thi Kim Oanh. When he had a petition to split his inheritance to the Court, but on October 31, 1993, Mrs. Hau sold the part of Mrs. Hau’s house to be temporarily divided to Mrs. Ha Thuy Linh. This home purchase is wrong. You must have be able to see 3 siblings in a foreign country (Mr. Duong, Mrs. C moisture and Ms. Thao) written for him to inherit the inheritance, so he asked to divide his legacy inheritance according to the law.

Mr. Hung presents a photocopy of the power of attorney issued on March 3, 1992 by Mr. Vu Dinh Duong, May 1, 1993 by Mrs. Vu Thi C on October 28, 1991, by Mrs. Vu Thi Thao, both have contents to authorize Mr. Hung to manage and look after his property in the house. 66 Dong Xuan is 1/6 of the house. After filing a lawsuit, Mr. Hung presented more “complete transfer papers for inheritance rights” to “dated April 25, 1995 by Mr. Vu Dinh Duong; “Span y to make the right to inheritance” dated 10 May 1995 of Mrs. Vu Thi C damp; “Paper gave me y inheritance” by Mrs. Vu Thi Thao; These documents are all recorded in foreign countries, all have confirmed contents: parents leave home 66 Dong Xuan for 6 children but Mrs. Tien (Hien) and Mrs. Hau have sold < span lang = “VI”> n the house left by the parents is a violation of the mother’s advice (not sold, let outsiders stay) … Mr. Duong and Mrs. Thao, Mrs C humidify this paper, so Mr. Hung 1/6 of the house of 66 Dong Xuan, each person will inherit the inheritance so that Mr. Hung can maintain ancestor worship and also have three children and grandchildren from overseas. where the ancestors worshiped and suggested that Mr. Hung be inherited in kind (the documents that Mr. Hung presented were only photocopies).

Defendant presents:

Ms. Vu Thi Tien presents: Confirmation of blood relation and origin of the house of 66 Dong Xuan as presented by Mr. Hung. In 1989, she sold her share to Mrs. Oanh, who handed over the house and completed the procedure of buying and selling houses at the Hanoi Housing and Land Department for buyers. After coming to live, Ms. Oanh also had an agreement with Mr. Hung, Mrs. Hau exchanged some works for to be used by the parties more conveniently. Later, due to Mr. Hung’s complaints, the Department of Housing and Land revoked the house purchase records between her and Mrs. Oanh. Mrs. Hau also sold her house to others. She determined that Thieu had given money to 3 people abroad, so they had no request to go home. She sold her house to Mrs. Oanh, now she has no responsibility for the part sold.

Ms. Vu Thi Hau presents: Confirmation of blood relationship and origin of house 66 Dong Xuan as Mr. Hung t </ span > r presentation and house division as well as the fact that Ms. Tien has sold a part like Ms. Tien presented. She determined that when she sold, she would notify the brothers and sisters abroad and they all agreed. She suggested to share with her in the part of the house she sold to the couple Linh and Mr. Khoi.

Persons with related obligation interests present:

Ms. Ha Thuy Linh and Mr. Hoang Manh Khoi present: When grandparents buy a house, Mrs. Hau shows the meeting minutes family, so grandparents agreed to buy. Grandparents paid enough money, moved in from there to now, asked to legalize the house bought by Mrs. Hau.

Ms. Nguyen Thi Kim Oanh presented: On October 18, 1992, she bought Mrs. Tien’s house to be divided, 30,000,000 copper. The purchase has been authorized by the government. After buying the house, she came home, had a swap agreement for some of the home use positions for Mr. Hung, asking to recognize the house sale contract between Mrs. Tien and her.

At the first-instance Civil Judgment No. 20 / DSST on May 23, 1995, the Hanoi People’s Court accepted request to share the inheritance of Mr. Hung, Mr. Duong, Ms. C moisture, Mrs. Thao was led by Mr. Hu g representative dividing the inheritance inheritance of instrument Quang and Thieu. Accept one ph The n the will of the widow on October 28, 1982, determine the inheritance worth VND 1,228,151,520, divide the inheritance by the current house and land for 3 people is Mr. Hung, Mrs. Hau and Mrs. Tien. V i buying and selling between Mrs. Tien and Mrs. Hau with Mrs. Oanh, Mrs. Linh is implemented according to state regulations.

Ms. Tien appeals the suggestion has reconsider how to calculate the legacy area next. Mr. Hung appealed that the Court was not objective.

At the Appellate Civil Judgment No. 115 of October 10, 1995, the Appellate Court of the Supreme People’s Court in Hanoi decided to: Remove the first-instance judgment, hand over the file to the Court. People’s Court of the city Hanoi shall re-solve first instance.

At the first instance judgment of No. 50 / DSST on September 11, 1996, the Hanoi People’s Court decided to accept receive the request to divide the inheritance of Mr. Hung, Mr. Duong, Ms. C moisture, Ms. Thao is represented by Mr. Hung to share the inheritance heritage of Quang and Mr. Thieu ; acknowledging the willingness of Mr. Duong, Mrs. damp, Mrs. Thao abroad ceded the inheritance to Mr. Hung and divided artifacts for Mr. Hung, Mrs. Hau and Mrs. Tien (1/3 of each shop and the back of the house), Mrs. Hau and Mrs. Tien had to pay the difference to Mr. Hung (Mrs. Hau 156,824,381 VND; Ms. Tien 140,774,106 VND). The purchase and sale of houses between Mrs. Tien and Mrs. Hau and Mrs. Oanh, Mrs. Linh is the law of i.

Mr. Hung appeals.

In Decision No. 82 / TDC on July 15, 1997, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme People’s Court in Hanoi has temporarily suspended ch just resolving the case.

After obtaining Resolution No. 1037/2006 / NQ- U BTVQH11 dated 27- 7-2006 by the Standing Committee of the National Assembly on housing transactions established before July 1, 1991 with Vietnamese residing abroad to participate, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme People’s Court at Hanoi has continued to resolve the case.

At the Appellate Civil Judgment No. 142/2007 / DSPT dated July 3, 2007, the Appellate Court of the Supreme People’s Court in Hanoi canceled the first instance judgment and handed over the Hanoi People’s Court to review the case firstly with the judgment: D thanks to to sue only Mr. Hung write and sign, power of attorney c incubated a Mr. Duong, Mrs Thao, and Mrs. Cam could not express the authorization to initiate a division of inheritance (except for the paper of Mrs. Thao) now, the parties admitted that Mr. Tang and Ms. Thao are both dead, so it is necessary to verify this and bring their heirs to the proceedings; revaluate the property accordingly.

After re-handling the case, the person present: review g Road and Ms. Thao died around 2002. The first-instance court asked Mr. Hung to provide the death certificate of Mr. Duong and Ms. Thao, supplementing the request for to sue under in accordance with Clause 2, Article 164 of the Code of Civil Procedure (name, address for , nationality of Mr. Duong’s and Mrs. Thao’s children; who is in the disputed real estate section but Mr. Hung cannot provide it.

In Decision No. 04/2008 / QDST-DS dated 17-01-2008, Hanoi People’s Court has suspended Only resolving the case, paying the court fee advance to Mr. Hung.

On January 29, 2008, Mr. Hung appealed that the Court suspended only The resolution of the case is not correct.

At Qu y defined number 168/2008 / DS-QDPT on September 4 -2008, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme People’s Court in Hanoi accepted Mr. Hung’s appeal, canceled the first instance decision on the grounds that the first instance level applied Clause 2 of Article 192 of communion only span lang = “VI” the resolution of the case is incorrect, losing the right to sue the litigant.

After resuming the case, the Hanoi People’s Court has requested Mr. Hung to provide the documents as the name, age, location Mr. Tang’s heir, Ms. Thao; written authorization or refusal to accept the inheritance of these people; names and addresses of people who are staying at Mrs. Oanh’s land. Mr. Hung could not provide the above documents.

In Decision No. 54 / DS-ST on September 30, 2009, the Hanoi People’s Court decided: Dinh only resolving the case of redistribution k at , returning the petition and attached evidence documents to Mr. Hung.

Mr. Hung appeals.

At Decision No. 44/2010 / QD-PT on March 9, 2010, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme People’s Court in Ha Internal decision: Maintain the first instance decision.

Mr. Hung has an application for cassation review.

In Decision No. 35/2013 / KN-DS dated January 22, 2013, the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court protested Decision No. 44/2010 / QD-PT dated March 9, 2010 of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme People’s Court in Hanoi. Proposing the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court to hear the cassation review, abolish the above-mentioned civil judgment decision and cancel the decision if just solve the case civil judgment of first instance No. 54/2009 / DS-ST dated September 30, 2009 of the Hanoi People’s Court; hand over the case file to the Hanoi People’s Court to resolve the first instance according to the provisions of law.

At the session the court the director, the representative of the Supreme People’s Procuracy with the appeal of the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court.

The Supreme People’s Court Judges Council identified:

House No. 66, Dong Xuan Street, Hoan Kiem District, Hanoi City by Vu Đ tool Quang (ch in t in 1979) and Nguyen Th have Widely (died in 1987) created. The three children with 6 children, 3 people are Mr. Vu Dinh Duong, Mrs. Vu Thi C damp, Mrs. Vu Thi Thao has settled abroad since 1979, still 3  n people in the country are Mr. Vu Dinh Hung, Mrs. Vu Thi Tien (Hien), Mrs. Vu Thi Hau. After Mr. Quang died, only Mr. Thieu, Mr. Hung, Mrs. Tien and Mrs. Hau managed this house. After Mr. Thieu died, Mr. Hung, Ms. Tien and Mrs. Hau divided the house into 3 parts to stay. On October 18, 1992, Mrs. Tien sold the house she was using to Mrs. Nguyen Thi Kim Oanh and on October 31, 1993, Mrs. Hau sold her house at to Ms. Ha Thuy Linh.

In 1993, Mr. Hung sued to ask for the inheritance of the above-mentioned parents’ houses according to law. The settlement of the case lasted from 1993 to 1996 and was suspended for only span lang = “VI”> appellate trial in 1997. In 2007, the case was re-handled. >

When resolving the case, before the suspension of legal proceedings (1997), Mr. Hung provided applications, authorization papers established in 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 of Mr. Duong, Mrs. C damp, Ms. Thao had the content to assign Mr. Hung to look after their inheritance management in inheritance is a house of land No. 66, Dong Xuan street; then Mr. Hung provided the documents in 1995 of Mr. Duong, Mrs. Thao and Mrs. Cam with the contents of so Mr. Hung had his inheritance in his talent. Production tr he accepted. The documents have stamps and seals of the host country (Mr. Tang in England, Mrs. Cam in France and Mrs. Thao in the US), but only a photocopy. However, the litigants all specify the house number and address of the person writing the text. During the process of resolving the case after the suspension period, Mr. Hung, Mrs. Tien, and Mrs. Hau all declared Mr. Duong, Ms. Thao died around 2002, Mr. Hung determined the location only  of her C damp, Ms. Thao did not change, and he contacted Mr. Tang’s son but did not receive a reply (pistol 376, 377, 382). The first-instance court required Mr. Hung to provide Mr. Duong’s death certificate, Ms. Thao; name and address of Mr. Duong’s child, Ms. Thao. Mr. Hung did not provide it and asked the Court to collect evidence to resolve it according to law (p. 390). Like that y , the file is already in place just of those who have lived abroad, but also ask for him It is not necessary to provide Mr. Duong’s Thao death certificate, as all three people in the span of the country “lang” = “VI” confirm that these two people have died. Perhaps, the Court of First Instance must carry out the judicial mandate procedure in accordance with regulations, collect evidence for Mr. Tang, Ms. Thao to clarify the time when these people died and if the two dead people still have people heir asked them about the viewpoint of resolving the case. Depending on each case, it is based on new evidence to settle the case according to regulations. If u cannot collect anything more still has to solve Mr. Hung’s request to enjoy redundancy According to the law, Mr. Tang’s inheritance will be temporarily handed to people living in the country to manage so that their heirs will have the right to follow the law, thus resolving the case. For those who are living in the part of Mrs. Tien’s house, the obligation to provide their names is that of Ms. Tien. The Court of First Instance asked Mr. Hung to provide the names of these people to the wrong people. The Court of First Instance said that Mr. Hung could not provide the name and address of Mr. Duong’s, Mrs. Thao’s, buyers ‘s of Mrs. Oanh to i just solve the case is not correct. The Court of Appeal should have canceled the first-instance decision to deliver the resolution, but it still holds the first-instance decision is not correct.

Also, follow the documents in the file and l at i’s declaration Mr. Hoang Manh Khoi on October 17, 2007 (pen 373) and “Paper selling house” on October 31, 1993 (pen number 18), Mrs. Hau sells the house she is managing for Mrs. Ha Thuy Linh ( husband is Mr. Hoang Manh Khoi). The first instance and appellate decision stated that Ms. Nguyen Thi Thuy Linh is incorrect and needs to be adjusted accordingly.

For the above reasons, based on paragraph 3 of Article 297 and Article 299 of the Civil Procedure Code ;

DECISION

1. Canceling Decision No. 44/2010 / QD-PT dated March 9, 2010 of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme People’s Court in Hanoi and canceling the decision to suspend the resolution of civil cases No. 54/2009 / DS-ST on September 30, 2009 of the Hanoi People’s Court on the inheritance dispute, between the plaintiff, Mr. Vu Dinh Hung and the defendant, Ms. Vu Thi Tien, Ms. Vu Thi Hau; Mr. Vu Dinh Duong, Mrs. Vu Thi C moisture, Mrs. Vu Thi Thao, Mrs. Nguyen Th have Kim Oanh, Mrs. Ha Thuy Linh.

2. Hand over the case file to the Hanoi People’s Court to resolve the case firstly in accordance with the provisions of law.

SHORT CONTENT

“Probably, the Court of First Instance must carry out legal mandate procedures under q y decide, collect ch stale every day number  i with Mr. Tang, Ms. Thao to clarify the time when these people died and if these two dead people had an heir then ask them about the matter e m solve the case. Depending on each case, it is based on new evidence to settle the case according to regulations. N oh u can not get any evidence more v  must resolve the request  of Mr. H u to be entitled to inheritance under the law, Mr. Duong’s Thao inheritance will be temporarily handed over to people living in the country to manage to later their heirs have the right to enjoy the law, thus resolving the case. For the knitting g living in the part of Mrs. Tien’s house, the obligation to provide their names is that of Mrs. Tien. The Court of First Instance asked Mr. Hung to give the names of these people incorrectly number i statues. The Court of First Instance said that Mr. Hung could not provide the name and address of Mr. Duong’s son, Ms. Thao, and the house buyer of Mrs. Oanh to suspend the award q u listing the case is not correct. The Court of Appeal l will have to cancel the first instance decision to deliver the resolution u I keep the first instance decision is not correct. “