Precedent No. 52/2021/AL was adopted by the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court on November 25, 2021, and published under Decision No. 594/QD-CA dated December 31, 2021, by the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court.
1. What is a precedent?
Precedents are arguments and rulings in legally effective judgments and decisions of the Courts regarding specific cases selected by the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court and published by the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court as precedents for Courts to study and apply in adjudication. (Article 1 of Resolution 04/2019/NQ-HDTP)
A selected precedent must meet the following criteria:
– It contains value in clarifying legal provisions that have different interpretations, analyzing and explaining legal issues and events, and pointing out principles, directions for handling, and legal norms to be applied in a specific case or demonstrating justice for issues not yet specifically regulated by law;
– It is exemplary;
– It has value in guiding the uniform application of law in adjudication.
2. Precedent No. 52/2021/AL on the validity of a contract for gifting land use rights when land use rights have not been registered
2.1. Source of the precedent
Cassation Decision No. 231/2020/DS-GDT dated September 30, 2020, of the High People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City regarding the case “Dispute over inheritance of assets; dispute over the request to declare a contract for gifting land use rights void” between the plaintiff, Mrs. Tong Thi V; and the defendant, Mr. Tong Thanh V; and 46 persons with related rights and obligations.
Location of the precedent content:
Paragraphs 23, 24, 25, and 26 of the “Court’s Findings” section.
2.2. Summary of the precedent content
– Precedent situation:
A contract for gifting land use rights was made in writing and has been notarized or authenticated; the donee has not registered the land use rights due to objective obstacles, and then the donor dies.
– Legal solution:
In this case, the contract for gifting land use rights must be determined to be legally effective.
Legal provisions related to the precedent:
– Article 467 of the Civil Code of Vietnam 2005 (corresponding to Article 459 of the Civil Code of Vietnam 2005);
– Article 692, Articles 722 to 726 of the Civil Code 2005 (corresponding to Article 502, Article 503 of the Civil Code 2015);
– Clause 1, Article 106; point b, Clause 1, Article 129 of the Land Law of Vietnam 2003 (corresponding to Clause 1, Article 95, Clause 3, Article 167; Clauses 1 and 3, Article 188 of the Land Law of Vietnam 2013);
– Article 146 of Decree 181/2004/ND-CP dated October 29, 2004, of the Government on the implementation of the Land Law 2003.
Keywords of the precedent:
“Gifting land use rights”; “Unregistered land use rights”; “Objective obstacles”; “Deceased donor”; “Legally effective gift contract”.
CASE CONTENT:
The plaintiff, Mrs. Tong Thi U (Mrs. U), presented the petition as follows:
The parents of Mrs. Tong Thi U were Mr. Tong Van T (died in 2007) and Mrs. Nguyen Thị C1 (died in 2011), who had 11 children.
In 2007, Mr. T died without a will.
On November 16, 2009, Mrs. C1 and the children agreed to establish a document for the division of Mr. T’s inheritance. According to the agreement, Mrs. C1 was allocated many land parcels and was granted land use right certificates, including parcel No. 257, map sheet No. 16, area 4,149 m2 and parcels No. 6, 18, 31, 32, 51, and 52, map sheet No. 15, area 12,883 m2, all located in neighborhood X, ward Y, town Z, Binh Duong province.
Taking advantage of Mrs. C1 being old, ill, no longer lucid, and illiterate, Mr. Tong Thanh V (Mr. V) deceived Mrs. C1 into signing only page 03 of a contract for gifting land use rights dated June 14, 2010. Mrs. C1 was not present at the Committee’s headquarters, but the Chairman of the People’s Committee of town (now ward) Y still authenticated the gift contract.
The aforementioned authentication violated regulations on notarization and authentication. Based on the illegally established gift contract, Mr. V was granted a land use right certificate for the area of 12,883 m2.
Currently, parcel No. 257 with an area of 4,149 m2 is still under the name of Mrs. C1 as the user.
Mrs. U filed a lawsuit, requesting as follows:
– To declare the land use right gift contract with authentication No. 111, book 1/2010TP/CC-SCT/HDGD authenticated by the People’s Committee of town (now ward) Y on June 14, 2010, as void;
– To determine the land area of 9,839.9 m2 (excluding the area currently used by Mr. Tong Van L1 and Tong Van P1) in parcels 6, 18, 31, 32, 51, and 52, map sheet No. 15, and the land area of 3,786.1 m2 (according to actual measurement on March 8, 2013) in parcel No. 257, map sheet No. 16 in ward Y, town Z as the estate left by Mrs. C1;
– To divide the estate left by Mrs. C1 as mentioned above according to law; Mrs. U requests to receive the inheritance in kind.
The defendant, Mr. Tong Thanh V (Mr. V), presented his opinion as follows:
Mrs. C1 gifted Mr. V all the land portions mentioned by Mrs. U; the gift was made through a legally authenticated contract and currently, Mr. V has been granted a land use right certificate for the area of 12,883 m2.
After being gifted the land, Mr. V redistributed it to other siblings in the family, each receiving a portion, and transferred it to some people via handwritten papers. Currently, Mr. Tong Van L1 (Mr. L1) uses 1,597 m2 and Mr. Tong Van P1 (Mr. P1) uses 2,418 m2 out of the total 12,883 m2 for which Mr. V holds the certificate; Mr. V agrees for Mr. L1 and Mr. P1 to continue using this area.
Regarding the land in parcel 257, after the gift contract was authenticated, Mr. V submitted documents to register the transfer of land use rights, but so far, he has not been granted the certificate because: due to errors in the overall map of this area, the local People’s Committee had to make corrections, and subsequently, a dispute over land use rights arose.
All mentioned land portions have been used by Mr. V since Mrs. C1 was alive until now.
According to Mr. V, the land use rights for the area of 3,786.1 m2 in parcel No. 257, map sheet No. 16 in ward Y are no longer part of Mrs. C1’s estate because they were transferred to him.
Therefore, Mr. V does not agree with Mrs. U’s petition.
Persons with related rights and obligations, Mr. Tong Huu H1 (Mr. H1), Mrs. Nguyen Thi G (Mrs. G), and Mr. Tong Van P1 (Mr. P1), presented their opinions as follows:
The land use rights for the area of 3,786.1 m2 in parcel No. 257, map sheet No. 16 and the land use rights for the area of 9,839.9 m2 in parcels 6, 18, 31, 32, 51, and 52, map sheet No. 15 in ward Y are the estate left by Mrs. C1; they request the Court to divide the inheritance according to law.
The person with related rights and obligations, Mrs. Tong Thi Thu T1 (Mrs. T1), presented her opinion as follows:
The land use rights for the area of 3,786.1 m2 in parcel No. 257 are the estate left by Mrs. C1, so she requests the Court to divide the inheritance according to law. Regarding the area of 9,839.9 m2 in parcels 6, 18, 31, 32, 51, and 52, Mrs. C1 gifted it to Mr. V. Subsequently, Mr. V was granted a land use right certificate and Mr. V redistributed land to Mrs. T1, so Mrs. T1 has no request regarding this land portion.
Persons with related rights and obligations, Mrs. Tong Thi N1 (Mrs. N1), Mrs. Tong Thi N2 (Mrs. N2), Mrs. Tong Thi Kim A (Mrs. A), Mrs. Tong Thanh N3 (Mrs. N3), and Mr. Tong Phuoc T2 (Mr. T2), presented their opinions as follows:
The assets Mrs. U requested to divide were gifted by Mrs. C1 to Mr. V according to two gift contracts authenticated by the People’s Committee of town (now ward) Y on June 14, 2010. Therefore, they do not request a division of inheritance. In the event the Court divides the inheritance, they agree to hand over their portions to Mr. V.
The person with related rights and obligations, Mr. Tong Van L1 (Mr. L1), presented his opinion as follows:
The origin of the disputed land belongs to Mr. L1’s grandparents, who left it to Mr. L1’s parents. During the time Mr. L1 joined the revolution, Mr. Tong Van T (Mr. L1’s elder brother) declared, registered, and was granted the land use right certificate. Later, Mr. T redistributed to Mr. L1 the portion where Mr. L1 is currently living, with a length of 80 m in parcel 18 according to a handwritten paper dated December 10, 2002; as for other disputed land portions, Mr. L1 is not involved.
Persons with related rights and obligations, Mrs. Nguyen Thi C2 (Mrs. C2) and Mr. Tong Thanh T3 (Mr. T3), presented their opinions as follows:
Mrs. C2 is Mr. V’s wife; Mr. T3 is Mr. V’s son. They do not agree with Mrs. U’s petition.
The person with related rights and obligations, Ms. Tong Ngoc L2 (Ms. L2), presented her opinion as follows:
Ms. L2 is the daughter of Mr. Tong Phuoc T2 and Mrs. Nguyen Thi H2; if it is the parents’ asset, Ms. L2 requests the Court to resolve it according to law.
The person with related rights and obligations, Ms. Tong Thien K1 (Ms. K1), presented her opinion as follows:
Ms. K1 is the daughter of Mr. Tong Van L1; she has no request in the case.
The person with related rights and obligations, Mrs. Nguyen Thi H2 (Mrs. H2), presented her opinion as follows:
Mrs. H2 is the wife of Mr. Tong Phuoc T2; she has no dispute with Mr. V.
The person with related rights and obligations, Mr. Nguyen Thanh L3 (Mr. L3), presented his opinion as follows:
Mr. L3 is the son of Mrs. Tong Thanh N3; if it is Mrs. N3’s asset, he requests the Court to resolve it according to law.
Persons with related rights and obligations, Mr. Vo Van T4 (Mr. T4) and Mr. Vo Van M (Mr. M), presented their opinions as follows:
Mr. T4 is the husband of Mrs. N2; Mr. M is the son of Mrs. N2. Mr. T4 and Mr. M do not agree with Mrs. U’s petition.
Persons with related rights and obligations, Ms. Tong Thi Tuyet N4 (Ms. N4) and Mr. Tong Thanh P2 (Mr. P2), presented their opinions as follows:
Ms. N4 and Mr. P2 are the children of Mr. Tong Van P1 and Mrs. Vo Thi B; if it is the parents’ asset, they have no request.
The successor of the rights and obligations of Mrs. Vo Thi B (Mrs. B) presented the opinion as follows:
Mr. Tong Van P1, Mrs. Nguyen Thi K2, Ms. Tong Thi Tuyet N4, Mr. Tong Thanh P2, Mr. Tong Thanh T5, Mrs. Tong Thi Mong T6, Mrs. Tong Thi Thuy D1 agree with the opinion Mrs. B had presented and agree with Mrs. U’s petition.
Persons with related rights and obligations, Mr. Tran Van D2 (Mr. D2), Mrs. Truong Thi L4 (Mrs. L4), Mrs. Tran Thi Mong T7 (Mrs. T7), Mr. Nguyen Van C3 (Mr. C3), Mr. Truong Dinh P3 (Mr. P3), Mrs. Pham Thi T8 (Mrs. T8), Mr. Ho Ba H3 (Mr. H3), Mrs. Nguyen Thi T9 (Mrs. T9), Mr. Le Chi V1 (Mr. V1), Mrs. Vo Thi Thanh T10 (Mrs. T10), Mrs. Luong Thi T11 (Mrs. T11), Mr. Luong The T12 (Mr. T12), Mr. Nguyen Duc T13 (Mr. T13), Mrs. Le Thị H4 (Mrs. H4), Mrs. Luong Thi M1 (Mrs. M1), Mr. Le Doan T14 (Mr. T14), Mr. Lai Van T15 (Mr. T15), Mrs. Do Thị H5 (Mrs. H5), and Mrs. Chu Thi Kim X (Mrs. X), all presented the same opinion:
They received land transfers from Mr. V via handwritten papers, have paid in full, and built houses on the land; the transfers were private agreements with Mr. V. If the resolution of this case affects their interests, they will sue and dispute with Mr. V in another case.
The legal representative of the People’s Committee of town Z, Binh Duong province presented the opinion as follows:
Land use right certificates No. CH 00091 and CH 00092 dated March 2, 2010, were issued by the People’s Committee of district Z to Mrs. Nguyen Thị C1 based on the inheritance of land use rights; the issuance followed the order and procedures specified in Article 23 of Circular No. 17/2009/TT-BTNMT dated October 21, 2009, of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. Land use right certificate No. CH0539 dated August 16, 2010, was issued by the People’s Committee of district Z to Mr. Tong Thanh V based on the receipt of a land use right gift, following the order and procedures specified in Article 23 of Circular No. 17/2009/TT-BTNMT dated October 21, 2009, of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment regarding certificates of land use rights, ownership of houses, and other assets attached to land.
The legal representative of the People’s Committee of ward Y, town Z, Binh Duong province presented the opinion as follows:
At the request of Mrs. Nguyen Thị C1, the Judicial-Civil Status official of the People’s Committee of town (now ward) Y went to Mrs. C1’s house to explain and draft the gift contract according to the prescribed form; the official read the entire content of the contract to both parties. Subsequently, Mrs. C1 and Mr. V signed and fingerprinted the contract in the presence of the official. At the time of signing and fingerprinting, Mrs. C1 and Mr. V were fully lucid and voluntary, possessing full civil act capacity as prescribed by law. After the parties signed and fingerprinted, the People’s Committee of town (now ward) Y performed the authentication procedure for the gift contract, authentication numbers 111 and 112, book No. 1.2010/TP/CC-SCT/HĐGD on the same day, June 14, 2010, in accordance with the law.
In the first-instance civil judgment No. 17/2019/DS-ST dated May 9, 2019, the People’s Court of Tan Uyen town, Binh Duong province decided as follows:
1. Accept part of the plaintiff Mrs. Tong Thi U’s petition against the defendant Mr. Tong Thanh V regarding the dispute over inheritance.
Divide the estate of Mrs. Nguyen Thị C1, which is the land use rights of the area measured as 3,786.1 m2 in parcel No. 257, map sheet No. 16 in neighborhood X, ward Y, town Z, for which the district (now town) Z People’s Committee issued land use right certificate No. CH00091 on March 2, 2010, under the name of Mrs. Nguyen Thị C1 as follows:
Mrs. Tong Thi U is entitled to an inheritance portion of land use rights for an area of 344.1 m2.
The heirs of Mr. Tong Van H6, including Mrs. Nguyen Thi G, Tong Minh H7, Tong Thị Kim T16, Tong Thị Kim P4, and Tong Thị Kim L5, are entitled to an inheritance portion of land use rights for an area of 344.1 m2.
Mrs. Tong Thi Thu T1 is entitled to an inheritance portion of land use rights for an area of 344.1 m2.
Mr. Tong Van P1 is entitled to an inheritance portion of land use rights for an area of 344.1 m2.
Mr. Tong Huu H1 is entitled to an inheritance portion of land use rights for an area of 344.1 m2.
Mr. Tong Thanh V, Mrs. Tong Thi N1, Mrs. Tong Thi N2, Mrs. Tong Thị N3, Mr. Tong Phuoc T2, and Mrs. Tong Thị Kim A are each entitled to an inheritance portion of land use rights for an area of 344.1 m2.
Record the voluntariness of Mrs. Tong Thi N1, Mrs. Tong Thi N2, Mrs. Tong Thi N3, Mr. Tong Phuoc T2, and Mrs. Tong Thi Kim A to hand over their inherited portions to Mr. Tong Thanh V. Thus, the total portion Mr. V inherits is land use rights for an area of 2,065.6 m2.
Regarding the plants on the land, whoever they belong to shall manage and use them.
2. Disapprove the plaintiff Mrs. Tong Thi U’s petition requesting to declare the land use right gift contract No. 111, book 1/2010/TP/CC-SCT/HĐGD authenticated by the People’s Committee of town (now ward) Y on June 14, 2010, as void; determine the area of 9,839.9 m2 in parcels 6, 18, 31, 32, 51, and 52, map sheet No. 15 according to Certificate No. CH00539 issued by the district (now town) Z People’s Committee on August 16, 2010, to Mr. Tong Thanh V as the estate of Mrs. Nguyen Thị C1 and divide the estate of Mrs. Nguyen Thị C1, which is the land use rights for 9,839.9 m2 in parcels 6, 18, 31, 32, 51, and 52, map sheet No. 15 in ward Y, town Z, Binh Duong province.
3. Terminate the trial for the plaintiff Mrs. Tong Thi U’s request regarding the area of 1,597 m2 in parcel 18 and 2,418 m2 in parcel 6 in ward Y, town Z, Binh Duong province.
In addition, the Court also ruled on court fees, costs for measurement, valuation, appraisal, responsibility for delayed execution, and the right of appeal of the parties.
On May 20, 2019, Mr. Tong Thanh V appealed, requesting to amend the first-instance judgment toward rejecting Mrs. U’s entire petition.
On May 22, 2019, Mrs. U appealed the first-instance judgment, requesting the appellate court to accept her entire petition.
In the appellate civil judgment No. 276/2019/DS-PT dated November 27, 2019, the People’s Court of Binh Duong province decided as follows:
Reject the appeals of the plaintiff Mrs. Tong Thi U and the defendant Mr. Tong Thanh V.
Partially amend the first-instance judgment (regarding court fees); other contents of the first-instance civil judgment No. 17/2019/DS-ST dated May 9, 2019, of the People’s Court of Tan Uyen town, Binh Duong province remain unchanged.
In addition, the appellate court also ruled on court fees, rights and obligations of judgment execution, and the legal effect of the judgment.
On January 6, 2020, Mr. Tong Thanh V submitted a petition requesting the competent Court to protest the aforementioned appellate civil judgment under cassation procedures.
In the protest decision No. 96/2020/KN-DS dated June 22, 2020, the Chief Justice of the High People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City protested part of the aforementioned appellate civil judgment; requesting the High People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City to conduct a cassation trial to annul part of the appellate judgment concerning the division of Mrs. Nguyen Thị C1’s estate, which is the land use rights (as measured) of 3,786.1 m2 in parcel No. 257, map sheet No. 16 in neighborhood X, ward Y, town Z, Binh Duong province; and transfer the case file to the People’s Court of Binh Duong province for retrial under appellate procedures.
At the hearing today, the representative of the High People’s Procuracy in Ho Chi Minh City requested the Judicial Committee of the High People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City to accept the protest of the Chief Justice of the High People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City, annul part of the appellate civil judgment regarding the division of Mrs. Nguyen Thị C1’s estate, which is the land use rights (as measured) of 3,786.1 m2 in parcel No. 257, map sheet No. 16 in neighborhood X, ward Y, town Z, Binh Duong province; and transfer the case file to the People’s Court of Binh Duong province for retrial under appellate procedures.
COURT’S FINDINGS:
[1] Mr. Tong Van T (died in 2007) and Mrs. Nguyen Thị C1 (died on September 8, 2011) were husband and wife, having 11 children as follows: Mrs. Tong Thi U (plaintiff), Mr. Tong Thanh V (defendant), Mr. Tong Van P1, Mr. Tong Van H6 (died on February 18, 2012, survived by his wife Mrs. Nguyen Thi G and children: Tong Minh H7, Tong Thị Kim T16, Tong Thị Kim P4, Tong Thị Kim L5), Mrs. Tong Thi N1, Mr. Tong Huu H1, Mrs. Tong Thi N2, Mrs. Tong Thi Kim A, Mrs. Tong Thanh N3, Mr. Tong Phuoc T2, Mrs. Tong Thi Thu T1.
[2] After Mr. T died (2007), on November 16, 2009, Mrs. C1 and the children (of Mr. T and Mrs. C1) established a document agreeing on the division of inheritance, which was land use rights; the document was authenticated by the People’s Committee of town Y, district Z, Binh Duong province on the same day, November 16, 2009.
[3] According to the aforementioned inheritance division document, Mrs. C1 was allocated 03 land portions in town Y, including: (a) 854 m2 in parcels 31, 32, 51 map sheet No. 15; (b) 17,762 m2 in parcels 06, 108, 109, 110, 115, 18, 52, 128, 129, 135, 136, 35, 38, 40, 54, 55 map sheets No. 15, 16; (c) 4,119 m2 in parcel 257, map sheet No. 16.
[4] After being allocated the mentioned assets, Mrs. C1 declared, registered, and was granted a land use right certificate on March 2, 2010. Thus, from the date the certificate was legally issued, these land portions became Mrs. C1’s private assets, and she had the right to dispose of them according to civil law.
[5] On June 14, 2010, Mrs. C1 established 02 contracts to gift Mr. V 02 land portions from the mentioned assets as follows: The first portion area 12,883 m2 in parcels 6, 18, 31, 32, 51, 52 map sheet No. 15 town Y; The second portion area 4,119 m2 in parcel 257 map sheet No. 16 town Y. Both land use right gift contracts were legally authenticated by the People’s Committee of town Y on the same day, June 14, 2010.
[6] After being gifted the land use rights, Mr. V performed administrative procedures as prescribed by law to transfer the name of the land user from Mrs. C1 to himself. On August 16, 2010, Mr. V was granted a land use right certificate by the People’s Committee of district Z for the area of 12,883 m2 in parcels 6, 18, 31, 32, 51, 52 map sheet No. 15 town Y (Certificate No. CH00539 dated August 16, 2010). Regarding this land portion, Mrs. U only requested to divide the inheritance for 9,839.9 m2 (as Mrs. U agreed to exclude the remaining area Mr. V had redistributed to Mr. L1 and Mr. P1).
[7] Regarding the land area of 4,119 m2 in parcel 257, map sheet No. 16, town Y (according to the actual measurement on March 8, 2013, by the first-instance Court, the area is 3,786.1 m2), currently Mr. V is still not named as the land user. The reason stated by Mr. V is that after submitting the registration for the name transfer from Mrs. C1, the local People’s Committee needed to correct the overall land map and subsequently, a dispute arose from Mrs. U’s side, so the name transfer has not been completed until now.
[8] Regarding the land area of 12,883 m2 in parcels 6, 18, 31, 32, 51, 52 map sheet No. 15 town Y (where Mrs. U only claimed inheritance for 9,839.9 m2):
[9] According to the inheritance division document dated November 16, 2009, and the gift contract dated June 14, 2010, this land was Mrs. C1’s private asset gifted to Mr. V, and Mr. V was legally granted the land use right certificate by the People’s Committee of district Z on August 16, 2010 (Certificate No. CH00539).
[10] When resolving the case, the first-instance Court and the appellate Court determined that the area of 12,883 m2 in parcels 6, 18, 31, 32, 51, 52 map sheet No. 15 town Y was Mr. V’s legal asset and rejected the request to divide the inheritance for this portion, which is legally grounded.
[11] Regarding the land area of 4,119 m2 in parcel 257 map sheet No. 16, town Y (measured as 3,786.1 m2):
[12] At the time of establishing the gift contract dated June 14, 2010 (transferring from Mrs. C1 to Mr. V), the Civil Code 2005 was in effect.
[13] Article 692 of the Civil Code 2005 regulates the validity of land use right transfer transactions as follows: “The transfer of land use rights takes effect from the time of registration of land use rights according to the provisions of land law.”
[14] Thus, legally, until the transferee (under the gift transaction) has registered the land use rights in their name and the transferor dies, the land use right gift contract would not be legally effective.
[15] If following the aforementioned logic, the first-instance Court and appellate Court were correct in determining that the area of 4,119 m2 in parcel 257 map sheet No. 16 town Y remains the estate of Mrs. C1 not yet transferred to Mr. V and accepting the inheritance claim.
[16] Regarding the legal nature, a gift contract is a unilateral contract, meaning only one party has an obligation toward the other. Therefore, in some cases like the specific case mentioned (where the donee has not registered the land use rights and the donor dies), the Court may consider and recognize the legal validity of the gift contract established on June 14, 2010, when determining that this contract is the document expressing Mrs. C1’s final will regarding her assets, expressing her right to dispose of assets before death, provided the following necessary and sufficient conditions are met:
[17] The contract satisfies the conditions prescribed by law regarding the right to gift land use rights;
[18] Until death, the donor did not have any document to replace the previously signed gift contract and took no action showing a change in the will expressed in the signed gift contract;
[19] The donee failed to register the asset (land use rights) due to objective obstacles in administrative procedures (or other objective obstacles), not due to the subjective will of the donor.
[20] In practice, Mr. V is the person who has possessed, managed, and used the gifted land portion since Mrs. C1 was alive until now because he was the youngest child, living with Mr. T and Mrs. C1 from childhood until they died.
[21] This reasoning was also recognized by the Supreme People’s Court in protest decision No. 470/2013/KN-DS dated October 3, 2013, and cassation decision No. 76/2014/DS-GĐT dated March 5, 2014, of the Civil Court of the Supreme People’s Court when resolving a similar case (dispute over a gift contract between plaintiff Mrs. Doan Viet T17 and defendants Mr. Doan Phong B1 and Mr. Doan Van K3 in Ca Mau province).
[22] Thus, the first-instance and appellate Courts both failed to accurately and comprehensively evaluate the documents and evidence, as well as failed to fully collect evidence to correctly judge the dispute over the 4,119 m2 land in parcel 257 map sheet No. 16 town Y, district Z, Binh Duong province, based on the aforementioned analysis. Therefore, the Judicial Committee of the High People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City annuls the part of the appellate judgment resolving the dispute over the 4,119 m2 land in parcel 257 map sheet No. 16 town Y, district Z, Binh Duong province, and transfers the case file to the appellate Court for retrial under appellate procedures.
[23] Upon retrial, if the land use right gift contract established on June 14, 2010, between Mrs. C1 (donor) and Mr. V (donee) meets all the necessary and sufficient conditions listed below, then the validity of the contract must be recognized; those conditions are:
[24] The contract satisfies the conditions prescribed by law regarding the right to gift land use rights;
[25] Until death, the donor did not have any document to replace the previously signed gift contract and took no action showing a change in the will expressed in the signed gift contract;
[26] The donee failed to register the asset (land use rights) due to objective obstacles in administrative procedures (or other objective obstacles), not due to the subjective will of the donor.
For the above reasons,
DECISION:
Pursuant to Article 325; Article 334; Article 337; Article 342 and Article 343 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015;
1. Accept the protest No. 96/2020/KN-DS dated June 22, 2020, of the Chief Justice of the High People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City.
Annul the appellate civil judgment No. 276/2019/DS-PT dated November 27, 2019, of the People’s Court of Binh Duong province regarding the case “Dispute over inheritance of assets; dispute over request to declare contract for gifting land use rights void” between plaintiff Mrs. Tong Thi U and defendant Mr. Tong Thanh V, specifically the part resolving the dispute over the 4,119 m2 area in parcel 257 map sheet No. 16 town Y, district Z, Binh Duong province (measured as 3,786.1 m2 by the first-instance Court on March 8, 2013).
2. Transfer the case file to the People’s Court of Binh Duong province for retrial under appellate procedures regarding the aforementioned annulled judgment.
PRECEDENT CONTENT
“[23] Upon retrial, if the land use right gift contract established on June 14, 2010, between Mrs. C1 (donor) and Mr. V (donee) meets all the necessary and sufficient conditions listed below, then the validity of the contract must be recognized; those conditions are:
[24] The contract satisfies the conditions prescribed by law regarding the right to gift land use rights;
[25] Until death, the donor did not have any document to replace the previously signed gift contract and took no action showing a change in the will expressed in the signed gift contract;
[26] The donee failed to register the asset (land use rights) due to objective obstacles in administrative procedures (or other objective obstacles), not due to the subjective will of the donor.”
