Precedent No. 31/2020/AL on determining the right to rent, purchase state-owned houses under Decree No. 61/CP dated July 5, 1994, of the Government on property rights

1. What is a Precedent?

Precedent refers to the arguments and rulings in legally effective judgments and decisions of the Court regarding a specific case, selected by the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court and promulgated by the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court as a precedent for Courts to research and apply in adjudication. (Article 1 of Resolution 04/2019/NQ-HĐTP)

Selected precedents must meet the following criteria:

– Clarifying legal provisions that are subject to different interpretations, analyzing and explaining legal issues and events, and indicating the principles, guidelines for handling, and legal norms to be applied in a specific case, or demonstrating fairness for issues not yet specifically regulated by law;

– Being exemplary;

– Providing guidance for the consistent application of law in adjudication.

2. Precedent No. 31/2020/AL on determining the right to rent, purchase state-owned houses under Decree No. 61/CP dated July 5, 1994, of the Government on property rights

2.1. Source of Precedent

Supervisory Review Decision No. 05/2018/DS-GDT dated April 10, 2018, of the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court regarding the civil case “Dispute over division of common property from the purchase of a house at state-regulated prices” in Ho Chi Minh City between plaintiff Ms. Nguyen Thi H and defendant Ms. Nguyen Thi Kim L; with 12 related parties.

Location of precedent content:

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

2.2. Summary of Precedent Content

– Precedent Situation:

An individual eligible to purchase a state-owned house under Decree No. 61/CP dated July 5, 1994, of the Government on housing sales and business, who, while alive, had not yet completed the procedures for purchasing the house at state-regulated prices as prescribed by law.

– Legal Solution:

In this case, the right to rent and purchase a state-owned house must be determined as a property right and transferred to the heirs of that person.

Legal provisions related to the precedent:

– Articles 172, 188, 634 Civil Code of Vietnam 1995 (corresponding to Articles 163, 181, 631 Civil Code of Vietnam 2005; Articles 105, 115, 609 Civil Code of Vietnam 2015);

– Decree No. 61/CP dated July 5, 1994 of the Government on housing sales and business.

Keywords of the precedent:

“State-owned housing”; “Purchase at state-regulated prices”; “Property”; “Property rights”.

CASE CONTENT:

In the Statement of Claim dated July 5, 2007, supplementary Statements of Claim dated August 29, 2008, January 15, 2010, July 20, 2010, August 10, 2010, and testimonies at the Court, the plaintiff, Ms. Nguyen Thi H, presented:

Her parents were Mr. Nguyen Thanh T (deceased in 1995) and Ms. Lam Thi C (deceased on January 25, 2011), who had 03 common children: her (H), Mr. Nguyen Van T1, and Mr. Nguyen Van T2 (deceased in 1992, whose wife was Ms. Ho Thi H4 and had 04 common children: Mr./Ms. Nguyen Ho Thanh C1, Nguyen Ho Hoang D, Nguyen Thi An T2, Nguyen Thi My D). Mr. T participated in the revolution before August 1945 in Bac Lieu. On July 20, 1954, Mr. T regrouped to the North. In 1964, Ms. C married another person. In October 1975, Mr. T worked at Department A, Military Region 7, Ho Chi Minh City. In 1976, Mr. T lived with Ms. Le Thi T4 (without marriage registration). Around early 1976, Mr. T was allocated house No. 63 (2nd floor) V Street, Ward X, now house No. 63 B Street, Ward H, District I, Ho Chi Minh City, by the Army. Under Decision No. 092/QD dated April 16, 1981, the Military Region 7 Housing and Land Council officially allocated the said house to Mr. T.

On August 27, 1995, Mr. T died without leaving a will. Ms. Nguyen Thi Kim L, Ms. T4’s stepdaughter, signed the lease contract for the said house and applied to purchase the house at state-regulated prices under Decree No. 61/CP dated July 5, 1994, of the Government on housing sales and business (hereinafter referred to as Decree No. 61/CP). Upon learning of Ms. L’s actions, she filed a complaint. On July 5, 2001, the National Defense Inspectorate of Military Region 7 Command held a meeting to resolve the matter with the content: if her family no longer had complaints, house No. 63 B Street would be resolved for Ms. L to purchase at state-regulated prices; after the purchase, the costs incurred in purchasing the house from the State would be deducted, and the remaining value of the house would be divided by agreement among the family members; if no agreement could be reached, it would be resolved according to law.

However, after completing the purchase at state-regulated prices, Ms. L appropriated the house and leased it to NV Limited Company, without discussing or agreeing with her and Mr. T1 on the division of the house’s value. She asserted that house No. 63 B Street was sold by the State at state-regulated prices with preferential treatment from the Party and the State for Mr. T, so Mr. T’s children must benefit. She requested the Court to compel Ms. L to divide 1/2 of the value of house No. 63 B Street among Mr. T’s heirs, after deducting the purchase price of the house at state-regulated prices and related costs.

In the Supplementary Statement of Claim dated August 29, 2008, she requested the Court to divide house No. 63 B Street according to law among Mr. T’s heirs, including Ms. T4, her, Mr. T1, Mr. T2, Ms. L (if proven to be a legal adopted child), and requested Ms. L to refund the house rental money from 1998 to date, amounting to approximately 2,000,000,000 VND.

On July 20, 2010, she filed a petition requesting the Court to determine that the contract signed by Department A, Military Region 7, to sell house No. 63 B Street to Ms. L was unlawful, proposing to annul the house sale contract between Department A, Military Region 7, and Ms. L’s couple; recognizing Mr. T’s heirs’ right to enjoy Mr. T’s standard to purchase house No. 63 B Street. On August 10, 2010, Ms. H withdrew her request dated July 20, 2010.

On November 17, 2014, Ms. H filed a petition requesting the division of common property, house No. 63 B Street, according to the agreement minutes of the Ministry of National Defense Inspectorate, not requesting the division of the amount Ms. L had leased house No. 63 B Street to NV Limited Company from 2002 to date.

The defendant, Ms. Nguyen Thi Kim L, presented:

Her parents were Ms. Le Thi T4 and Mr. Nguyen Van C2 (Head of the Central Organization Committee of Southern Vietnam – sacrificed in 1973). In 1975, she and her family were allocated a part of the house at No. 201/6 Y, now No. 4/1 (sometimes recorded as No. 204/1) HV Street, Ward D, District G, Ho Chi Minh City, by the Central Organization Committee. After Mr. C2 passed away, Ms. T4 started a family with Mr. T. In 1981, Ms. T4 fell ill, so she temporarily resided at house No. 63 B Street to care for her sick mother. In 1982, Ms. T4 died. At that time, Mr. T was ill and frequently hospitalized, but had no family members to care for him (Mr. T’s children had moved their household registration and lived elsewhere), so she stayed at house No. 63 B Street to care for Mr. T.

In 1986, at Mr. T’s request, her siblings and she completed procedures to return house No. 4/1 HV Street to be registered for household residence at house No. 63 B Street. In 1993, Mr. T made a power of attorney authorizing her to fully resolve matters related to the rights, obligations, and responsibilities concerning house No. 63 B Street; Mr. T clearly stated in the power of attorney that it would be valid while he was alive and even after his death. In 1995, Mr. T died. In 2001, when she applied to purchase the house at state-regulated prices, Ms. H and Mr. T1 filed a complaint. The Military Region 7 Command resolved the matter by dismissing Ms. H’s complaint, allowing her and her husband to purchase the house at state-regulated prices; after the purchase, the amount paid for the house at state-regulated prices would be deducted, and the remaining portion would be agreed upon by the family members; if no agreement could be reached, it would be resolved according to law. Out of personal affection and being siblings, she also intended that if Ms. H withdrew her complaint and she was granted a reduction in the house purchase price according to Mr. T’s standard, she would support Mr. T’s biological children. Therefore, she also agreed with the resolution of Military Region 7 Command, but subsequently, Ms. H and Mr. T1 continued to complain, so she was not able to purchase at a reduced price according to Mr. T’s regime but purchased under the regime for children of martyrs at a price of 606,311,587 VND. Since she paid the amount in one lump sum, she received a 10% reduction on the house price and a 20% reduction on the land price, with a total amount payable of 506,450,828 VND. Thus, she purchased the said house at state-regulated prices according to her own standard (martyr’s child standard), not Mr. T’s standard, so house No. 63 B Street mentioned above is the separate property of her and her husband. On October 9, 2002, she and her husband, Mr. Nguyen Phi H3 (deceased on July 4, 2006), were granted the certificate of house ownership and land use rights mentioned above. She did not accept Ms. H’s claim.

After purchasing the house at state-regulated prices, Mr. Nguyen Thanh H1 (her brother) spent 400,000,000 VND (equivalent to 80 taels of gold) on house repairs. If Ms. H’s request is accepted, Mr. H1’s house repair cost of 80 taels of gold must be deducted.

If the Court does not accept Ms. H’s request, he has no demands.

Related parties with rights and obligations:

– Mr. Nguyen Van T1 stated: He agreed with Ms. H’s presentation and request.

– Ms. Ho Thi H4 and Mr./Ms. Nguyen Ho Thanh C1, Nguyen Ho Hoang D, Nguyen Thi An T3, Nguyen Thi My D all authorized Ms. H to resolve the case.

– Mr. Nguyen Thanh H1 stated: his name was in the household registration book for house No. 63 B Street since 1989. Around 2004, he and Ms. L repaired and built an extension at the back of the house, valued at approximately 400,000,000 VND. According to him, this house is not Mr. T’s inheritance. In case the Court accepts Ms. H’s request, he requests to be reimbursed for the house repair cost calculated at the gold price in 2004. If the Court does not accept Ms. H’s request, he has no demands.

– Mr. Nguyen Hoang Minh M1, Ms. Hoang Nguyen Ngoc T7 (children of Mr. Nguyen Phi H3) stated: They had no opinions, no requests, and proposed that the Court adjudicate in their absence according to legal provisions.

The house valuation report dated September 8, 2010, by the People’s Court of District 3, Ho Chi Minh City, determined the value of house and land No. 63 B Street to be 33,993,333,920 VND. The October 2010 cost estimation file of District 3 Public Service Company under the People’s Committee of District 3, Ho Chi Minh City, determined the value of the house built by Mr. H1 to be 264,114,568 VND.

In Civil First Instance Judgment No. 17/2009/DSST dated April 28, 2009, the People’s Court of District 3, Ho Chi Minh City, decided (summary):

Rejected the request of Ms. Nguyen Thi H, Mr. Nguyen Van T1, Ms. Nguyen Thi C (with Ms. Nguyen Thi H as legal guardian), Ms. Ho Thi H4, Mr./Ms. Nguyen Ho Thanh C1, Nguyen Ho Hoang D, Nguyen Thi An T3, Nguyen Thi My D regarding the division of inheritance for house No. 63 (2nd floor) B Street, Ward H, District I, Ho Chi Minh City.

After the first instance trial, Ms. H and Mr. T1 filed an appeal.

In Civil Appellate Judgment No. 1446/2009/DSPT dated August 14, 2009, the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City annulled Civil First Instance Judgment No. 17/2009/DSST dated April 28, 2009, of the People’s Court of District 3, Ho Chi Minh City, and remanded the case file to the People’s Court of District 3, Ho Chi Minh City, for re-adjudication in the first instance procedure, with the reason: the first instance court failed to summon the wife and children of Mr. Nguyen Thanh H1; the heirs of Mr. Nguyen Phi H3 (deceased in 2006) to participate in the proceedings was a shortcoming. The first instance court needed to clarify the dispute relationship in this case.

Due to the presence of parties abroad (Mr. Nguyen Hoang Minh M1 and Ms. Hoang Nguyen Ngoc T7), the People’s Court of District 3, Ho Chi Minh City, transferred the case file to the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City for resolution according to its jurisdiction.

In Civil First Instance Judgment No. 186/2014/DS-ST dated March 6, 2014, the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City decided:

Partially accepted Ms. Nguyen Thi H’s request.

Compelled Ms. Nguyen Thi Kim L to return to Ms. Nguyen Thi H, Mr. Nguyen Van T1, and the heirs of Mr. Nguyen Van T2 the difference from the purchase of the house at state-regulated prices, specifically as follows:

Ms. Nguyen Thi H: 3,882,238,480 VND, 1/8 share. Mr. Nguyen Van T1: 3,882,238,480 VND, 1/8 share. The heirs of Mr. Nguyen Van T2, including: Nguyen Ho Thanh C1, Nguyen Ho Hoang D, Nguyen Thi An T3, and Nguyen Thi My D, are 3,882,238,480 VND, 1/8 share. Each person receives 970,559,620 VND, this amount is temporarily entrusted to Ms. H for management, and Ms. H is responsible for returning it to Mr. T2’s co-heirs.

Ms. Nguyen Thi Kim L is entitled to a total of 20,878,905,440 VND, 5/8 share (3,882,238,480 VND + 16,996,666,960 VND).

Rejected Ms. L’s request to confirm that the said house belongs to her personal ownership.

The first instance court also ruled on court fees, liability for delayed judgment enforcement, and the right to appeal.

After the first instance trial, Ms. Nguyen Thi H and Ms. Nguyen Thi Kim L filed appeals.

In Civil Appellate Judgment No. 125/2015/DS-PT dated August 21, 2015, the High People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City decided:

Rejected Ms. Nguyen Thi H’s appeal; accepted Ms. Nguyen Thi Kim L’s appeal; amended the aforementioned civil first instance judgment as follows:

Determined that house No. 63 (2nd floor) B Street, Ward H, District I, Ho Chi Minh City, is the property owned by Ms. Nguyen Thi Kim L and Mr. Nguyen Phi H3 (deceased on July 4, 2006), according to Certificate of House Ownership and Land Use Rights No. 19980/2002 dated October 9, 2002, issued by the People’s Committee of Ho Chi Minh City.

Rejected Ms. Nguyen Thi H’s request, Mr. Nguyen Van T1’s request, and the requests of parties Nguyen Ho Thanh C1, Nguyen Ho Hoang D, Nguyen Thi An T3, and Nguyen Thi My D to be entitled to the value of house No. 63 (2nd floor) B Street, Ward H, District I, Ho Chi Minh City, specifically as follows:

Rejected Ms. Nguyen Thi H’s request for Ms. Nguyen Thi Kim L to divide the amount of 8,320,548,575 VND.

Rejected Mr. Nguyen Van T1’s request for Ms. Nguyen Thi Kim L to divide the amount of 8,320,548,575 VND.

Rejected the requests of parties Nguyen Ho Thanh C1, Nguyen Ho Hoang D, Nguyen Thi An T3, and Nguyen Thi My D for Ms. Nguyen Thi Kim L to divide the amount of 8,320,548,575 VND.

On October 18, 2015, Ms. Nguyen Thi H filed a petition requesting a supervisory review of the aforementioned civil appellate judgment.

In Supervisory Review Protest Decision No. 01/QDKNGDT-VKS-DS dated August 22, 2017, the Chief Procurator of the Supreme People’s Procuracy protested the aforementioned civil appellate judgment and proposed that the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court conduct a supervisory review in the direction of annulling Civil Appellate Judgment No. 125/2015/DS-PT dated August 21, 2015, of the High People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City and annulling Civil First Instance Judgment No. 186/2014/DSST dated March 6, 2014, of the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City; remanding the case file to the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City for re-adjudication in the first instance procedure according to legal provisions with the following opinion:

Mr. Nguyen Thanh T lived with Ms. Nguyen Thi C and had 03 common children, including Mr./Ms.: Nguyen Thi H, Nguyen Van T1, and Nguyen Van T2 (Mr. T2 died in 1992, whose wife was Ho Thi H4 and had 04 children). In 1975, Mr. T returned to Southern Vietnam and lived with Ms. Le Thi T4, with no common children. Ms. T4 had two separate children: Ms. Nguyen Thi Kim L and Mr. Nguyen Thanh H1.

The property in dispute between the two parties is the house at No. 63 (2nd floor) V Street, Ward X, District I (now B Street, Ward H, District I, Ho Chi Minh City). The origin of the house is that it was taken over and used by the Military Region 7 Command after the liberation of Southern Vietnam. In 1981, Military Region 7 issued “Certificate of Ownership and Use Rights” No. 092/QD dated April 16, 1981, to Mr. Nguyen Thanh T. According to the content of the certificate, the allocation of the house to Mr. T was “to create all conditions for accommodation for cadres’ families, long-term stability, and allocated due to the cadre’s family having no housing.” At the time of allocation, Ms. H and Mr. T1 (Mr. T’s children) lived with Mr. T and had permanent household registration at the said house. By 1982, Ms. L and Mr. H1, two siblings, moved in with Mr. T and were sponsored by Mr. T to register their household at the said house.

On June 9, 1993, Mr. T made a “Power of Attorney” with the content: “…I authorize my child Nguyen Thi Kim L to act on my behalf while I am alive and authorize her to fully resolve matters related to the rights, obligations, and responsibilities concerning the house allocated by Military Region 7 and the City Department of Housing and Land (including the first floor and the ground floor area previously divided between the two families) when I unfortunately pass away.” The document was witnessed by representatives of the residential group, representatives of Branch 7 – Veterans Association of Ward H, District I; representatives of Ward H Police, District I, and confirmed by the People’s Committee of Ward H. Thus, this is a power of attorney for Ms. L to act on behalf of Mr. T while he is alive and after his death to resolve matters related to the house, not to authorize Ms. L to own the entire house as determined by the appellate court.

On August 27, 1995, Mr. T died without leaving a will. In 1998, when Ms. L filed a petition with the Military Region 7 Housing and Land Council to purchase the said house at state-regulated prices under Decree 61/CP, Ms. H and Mr. T1 complained, disagreeing with Ms. L purchasing the house under Mr. T’s regime. In the Complaint Resolution Minutes dated July 5, 2001, of the Ministry of National Defense Inspectorate, both parties agreed “…to allow Ms. L to register to purchase house No. 63 B Street. The division, after deducting the obligatory expenses to the State, the remaining value will be discussed and agreed upon by the siblings; if no agreement is reached, it will be resolved according to law,” and in the Complaint Resolution Minutes of the People’s Committee of Ward H dated August 17, 2001, Ms. L also confirmed “agreed to make a commitment according to the Military Region’s resolution minutes dated July 5, 2001….”.

By October 2, 2001, Department A, Military Region 7, signed a contract for Ms. L to lease the said house. Subsequently, the Military Region 7 Housing and Land Council completed procedures to sell the said house to Ms. L under Decree 61/CP. On October 9, 2002, Ms. L and her husband (Mr. Nguyen Phi H3, deceased in 2006) were granted the certificate of house ownership and land use rights.

Thus, although Mr. T had not completed the procedures for purchasing the said house at state-regulated prices before his death, Mr. T was still the person granted the house by Military Region 7 according to the standard of a military officer, a person with meritorious service to the revolution, and Military Region 7’s decision to allocate the house to Mr. T had not been revoked. At the same time, according to the regulations on selling state-owned houses, for houses with disputes and complaints, the sale procedures will not be resolved, so only after an agreement between the two parties did Military Region 7 allow Ms. L to register to purchase the house at state-regulated prices. Furthermore, Official Letter No. 8709/SXD-BKTBN dated December 8, 2008, of the Ho Chi Minh City Department of Construction stated: When selling the house at state-regulated prices to Ms. L, it was based on Decision No. 092/QD dated April 14, 1981, of Military Region 7 regarding the allocation of the house to Mr. T, Confirmation Letter No. 672/XN-QLDT dated December 5, 1998, of District G Urban Management Department confirming Ms. L’s return of the house to the State, and the minutes of the complaint resolution meeting dated July 5, 2001, of the Ministry of National Defense Inspectorate, Military Region 7. Therefore, there is a basis to determine that this is common property agreed upon in the minutes dated July 5, 2001, and August 7, 2001, between Ms. Nguyen Thi Kim L and the two siblings Ms. Nguyen Thi H and Mr. Nguyen Van T1, so the first instance court’s determination that this was a dispute over the division of common property from the purchase of the house at state-regulated prices to accept Ms. H’s claim was well-founded; however, when determining the proportion of the value to be divided, it should have deducted the house purchase costs before dividing, but the first instance court divided 1/2 of the house’s value to Ms. L and then deducted the house purchase costs from the remaining 1/2 value before dividing it equally among the parties, including Ms. L, which was inaccurate. The appellate court did not consider the above contents and instead held that Mr. T had made a “Power of Attorney” dated June 9, 1993, authorizing Ms. L to own the entire house and that Ms. L had to return the house allocated to the State due to an exchange of benefits being enjoyed to determine that the said house was the property owned by Ms. Nguyen Thi Kim L and Mr. Nguyen Phi H3 (Ms. L’s husband, deceased in 2006), which was incorrect and did not ensure the rights of Mr. T’s children.

At the supervisory review hearing, the representative of the Supreme People’s Procuracy proposed that the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court accept the protest decision of the Chief Procurator of the Supreme People’s Procuracy.

COURT’S OPINION:

[1] The origin of house No. 63 (2nd floor) V Street, Ward X, District I (now B Street, Ward H, District I, Ho Chi Minh City) is that it was taken over and used by the Military Region 7 Command after the liberation of Southern Vietnam. In 1981, Military Region 7 issued “Certificate of Ownership and Use Rights” No. 092/QD dated April 16, 1981, to Mr. Nguyen Thanh T. According to the content of the certificate, the allocation of the house to Mr. T was “to create all conditions for accommodation for cadres’ families, long-term stability, and allocated due to the cadre’s family having no housing.” At the time of allocation, Ms. Nguyen Thi H and Mr. Nguyen Van T1 (Mr. T’s children) lived with Mr. T and had permanent household registration at the said house. By 1982, Ms. Nguyen Thi Kim L and Mr. Nguyen Thanh H1, two siblings, moved their household registration to live with Mr. T. Thus, Mr. T was a person with meritorious service to the revolution, so Military Region 7 allocated house No. 63 B Street mentioned above according to the standard of a military officer. By the time Mr. T died in 1995, he had not yet completed the procedures for purchasing house No. 63 at state-regulated prices. According to the provisions of Article 188 and Article 634 of the Civil Code 1995, Mr. T’s right to rent and purchase the house at state-regulated prices is a property right (valued in money) and is transferred to Mr. T’s heirs. Therefore, Ms. H and Mr. T1 are entitled to inherit Mr. T’s right to rent and purchase the house at state-regulated prices.

[2] In 1998, when Ms. L filed a petition with the Military Region 7 Housing and Land Council to purchase the said house at state-regulated prices under Decree No. 61/CP dated July 5, 1994, of the Government on housing sales and business, Ms. H and Mr. T1 complained, disagreeing with Ms. L purchasing the house under Mr. T’s regime. In the Complaint Resolution Minutes dated July 5, 2001, of the Ministry of National Defense Inspectorate, both parties agreed “…to allow Ms. L to register to purchase house No. 63 B Street. The division, after deducting the obligatory expenses to the State, the remaining value will be discussed and agreed upon by the siblings; if no agreement is reached, it will be resolved according to law,” and in the Complaint Resolution Minutes of the People’s Committee of Ward H dated August 17, 2001, Ms. L also confirmed “agreed to make a commitment according to the Military Region’s resolution minutes dated July 5, 2001…”. By October 2, 2001, Department A, Military Region 7, signed a contract for Ms. L to lease the said house. Subsequently, the Military Region 7 Housing and Land Council completed procedures to sell the said house to Ms. L under Decree No. 61/CP. On October 9, 2002, Ms. L and her husband (Mr. Nguyen Phi H3, deceased in 2006) were granted the Certificate of House Ownership and Land Use Rights mentioned above. Thus, Ms. L’s purchase of house No. 63 B Street mentioned above was due to the agreement between Ms. H, Mr. T1, and Ms. L on July 5, 2001, which then allowed Military Region 7 to resolve for Ms. L to register to purchase the house at state-regulated prices. Therefore, there is a basis to determine that house No. 63 B Street is common property of Ms. H, Mr. T1, and Ms. L.

[3] The Power of Attorney dated June 9, 1993, from Mr. T stated: “I authorize my child Nguyen Thi Kim L to act on my behalf while I am alive and authorize her to fully resolve matters related to the rights, obligations, and responsibilities concerning the house allocated by Military Region 7 and the City Department of Housing and Land (including the first floor and the ground floor area previously divided between the two families) when I unfortunately pass away.” This is a power of attorney for Ms. L to act on behalf of Mr. T while he is alive, as well as after his death, to resolve matters related to the house (regarding procedures), not to authorize Ms. L to own the entire house as determined by the appellate court.

[4] Furthermore, according to Ms. L’s testimony, her household registration at house No. 63 B Street was due to Mr. T’s request for her to return house No. 4/1 HV Street, Ward D, District G, Ho Chi Minh City, which she and her family were allocated under the martyr’s regime. There is no document in the file indicating that Ms. L had to return house No. 4/1 HV Street to be registered for household residence at house No. 63 B Street. Ms. L stated that she purchased house No. 63 B Street under the martyr’s regime, not Mr. T’s regime. According to Official Letter No. 8709/SXD-BKTBN dated December 8, 2008, of the Ho Chi Minh City Department of Construction, when the Military Region 7 Housing Sales Council processed the sale of the said house, it did not grant preferential policies for people with meritorious service to the revolution to Mr. T, but sold the house based on documents such as the application to purchase state-owned housing, Ms. L’s household registration book, Decision 092/QD dated April 16, 1981, on allocating the house to Mr. T, Confirmation Letter No. 672/XN-QLDT dated December 5, 1998, regarding Ms. L’s return of house 4/1 HV Street… The first instance and appellate courts failed to clarify under which preferential regime Ms. L purchased the house? Whether it was Mr. T’s preferential regime or Ms. L’s martyr’s child regime is a shortcoming.

[5] Furthermore, according to Decision No. 05/QD-UB-QLDT dated January 4, 1995, of the People’s Committee of Ho Chi Minh City, the land price on B Street was 4,000,000 VND/m² (328.21m² x 4,000,000 VND/m² = 1,312,840,000 VND), while Ms. L purchased the house and land at a land price of 392,296,000 VND. Thus, the first instance and appellate courts failed to clarify under which regime Ms. L received a reduction in the house purchase price? How was the reduction in house purchase price calculated based on years of service and specific percentage reduction?

[6] The first instance court’s determination that house No. 63 B Street is common property of Ms. H, Mr. T1, and Ms. L is well-founded; however, when determining the proportion of the value to be divided, it should have deducted the house purchase costs and Ms. L’s contributions before dividing the common property, but the first instance court divided 1/2 of the house’s value to Ms. L and then deducted the house purchase costs from the remaining 1/2 value before dividing it equally among Ms. H, Mr. T1, and Ms. L, which was incorrect.

[7] The appellate court held that Mr. T had made a “Power of Attorney” dated June 9, 1993, authorizing Ms. L to own the entire house No. 63 B Street and that Ms. L had to return house No. 4/1 HV Street, Ward D, District G, Ho Chi Minh City, to the State due to an exchange of benefits being enjoyed to determine that house No. 63 B Street was the property owned by Ms. Nguyen Thi Kim L and Mr. Nguyen Phi H3 (Ms. L’s husband, deceased in 2006), which was incorrect and did not ensure the rights of Mr. T’s children.

[8] When re-adjudicating the case, the first instance court needs to conduct an appraisal and valuation of the disputed land area; calculate the remaining portion after deducting Ms. L’s house purchase costs and contributions, and then divide it between the plaintiff and the defendant, taking into account market prices to ensure the rights of all parties according to legal provisions. Additionally, during the use of the house, Ms. L and Mr. Nguyen Thanh H1 invested in house repairs, and Mr. Nguyen Thanh H1 filed a petition requesting the Court to resolve the reimbursement of house repair costs for him, amounting to approximately 400,000,000 VND. Therefore, when re-adjudicating, the first instance court needs to instruct Mr. Nguyen Thanh H1 to pay an advance on court fees and resolve it jointly within the same case.

For the above reasons,

DECISION:

Based on Point b, Clause 2, Article 337, Clause 3, Article 343 of the Civil Procedure Code.

1. Accepted Supervisory Review Protest Decision No. 01/QDKNGDT-VKS-DS dated August 22, 2017, of the Chief Procurator of the Supreme People’s Procuracy.

2. Annulled Civil Appellate Judgment No. 125/2015/DS-PT dated August 21, 2015, of the High People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City and annulled Civil First Instance Judgment No. 186/2014/DS-ST dated March 6, 2014, of the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City regarding the case “Dispute over division of common property from the purchase of a house at state-regulated prices” between plaintiff Ms. Nguyen Thi H and defendant Ms. Nguyen Thi Kim L and other related parties.

3. Remanded the case file to the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City for re-adjudication in the first instance procedure according to legal provisions.

CONTENT OF PRECEDENT

“[1]… Thus, Mr. T was a person with meritorious service to the revolution, so Military Region 7 allocated house No. 63 B Street mentioned above according to the standard of a military officer. By the time Mr. T died in 1995, he had not yet completed the procedures for purchasing house No. 63 at state-regulated prices. According to the provisions of Article 188 and Article 634 of the Civil Code 1995, Mr. T’s right to rent and purchase the house at state-regulated prices is a property right (valued in money) and is transferred to Mr. T’s heirs. Therefore, Ms. H and Mr. T1 are entitled to inherit Mr. T’s right to rent and purchase the house at state-regulated prices.”