Precedent No. 56/2022/AL was adopted by the Council of Justices of the Supreme People’s Court on September 7, 2022, and published under Decision 323/QD-CA dated October 14, 2022, 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 that are selected by the Council of Justices 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:
– Possess value in clarifying legal provisions that have different interpretations; analyze and explain legal issues and events; and indicate principles, handling orientations, and legal norms to be applied in a specific case or demonstrate equity for issues not yet specifically regulated by law;
– Possess normativity;
– Possess guiding value for the uniform application of law in adjudication.
2. Precedent No. 56/2022/AL on the settlement of disputes over grave relocation
2.1. Source of the precedent
First-instance civil judgment No. 33/2019/DS-ST dated November 18, 2019, of the People’s Court of Chau Thanh District, Kien Giang Province, regarding the case “Dispute over request to terminate the act of preventing grave relocation” between the plaintiff, Mrs. Tran Thi Thu V, and the defendants, Mr. Vuong Minh T and Mr. Vuong Minh H.
Location of the precedent content:
Paragraph 4 of the “Court’s Findings” section.
2.2. Overview of the precedent content
– Precedent situation:
A husband dies, and his wife asks to bury him on the land of her husband’s relatives. Later, the wife wants to relocate her husband’s grave to her family’s land, and a dispute arises.
– Legal solution:
In this case, the Court must determine that the wife has the right to relocate her husband’s grave for management and care.
Legal provisions related to the precedent:
– Clause 1 Article 7, Article 11, and Clause 1 Article 39 of the Civil Code of Vietnam 2015;
– Article 4 of the Civil Procedure Code of Vietnam 2015.
Keywords of the precedent:
“Grave relocation dispute”; “Right to care, manage, and relocate graves”.
CASE CONTENT:
According to the lawsuit petition dated April 24, 2019, and testimonies during the case resolution process, the plaintiff Mrs. Tran Thi Thu V presented:
Her late husband was Mr. Vuong Van A, born in 1945, who died in 2004. Before his death, her husband wished to be buried on the family land in Hamlet B, Commune M, District C, Kien Giang Province. However, at the time of his death, her family’s land was under planning, so she brought Mr. A to the land of her brother-in-law, Mr. Vuong Van B, for burial with the intention of her and her children to wait until the planning was over to bring her husband’s remains back to the home land for burial.
Currently, her family’s land is stable. She wants to fulfill her husband’s wish by bringing Mr. A’s remains back to the home land for burial, but her two nephews, Mr. Vuong Minh T and Mr. Vuong Minh H, are preventing her and do not agree to let her take her husband’s remains to the home land for burial.
At today’s trial: Mr. Phu Thanh S, the authorized representative of Mrs. Tran Thi Thu V, requested the Court to compel Mr. Vuong Minh T and Mr. Vuong Minh H not to prevent Mrs. V from bringing her husband Mr. Vuong Van A’s remains to her home land for burial.
The defendants, Mr. Vuong Minh T and Mr. Vuong Minh H, also provided their opinions:
Mr. Vuong Van A was their biological uncle. When Mr. A died, he was buried on their family’s land, and currently, Mr. Vuong Van T’s name is on the land use right certificate. Regarding the plaintiff’s request for them to terminate the act of preventing her from taking her husband Mr. Vuong Van A’s remains to her home land for burial, they do not agree because their uncle, Mr. Vuong Van A, currently has no relatives nearby to take care of the grave. Additionally, they temporarily want to care for it until it is determined that there are relatives nearby, at which point they will agree to let Mrs. V relocate the remains. They have cared for the grave for about 15 years, so they do not agree with Mrs. V’s request.
At today’s trial: Regarding the plaintiff Mrs. Tran Thi Thu V’s request to compel them to terminate the act of preventing her from taking her husband Mr. Vuong Van A’s remains to her home land for burial, they do not agree.
The representative of the People’s Procuracy of Chau Thanh District stated the viewpoint on the compliance with the law by the Judge and the participants in the case from the time of acceptance to the time of deliberation at today’s first-instance trial, which has strictly followed the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code; regarding the case resolution direction: Proposed that the Trial Panel accept the entire lawsuit request of the plaintiff.
COURT’S FINDINGS:
[1] The lawsuit request of the plaintiff Mrs. Tran Thi Thu V is made in accordance with the right to sue under Clause 2 Article 4, Clause 14 Article 26, Point a Clause 1 Article 35, and Point a Clause 1 Article 39 of the Civil Procedure Code, which falls under the jurisdiction of the People’s Court of Chau Thanh District, Kien Giang Province.
[2] Regarding the legal relationship in dispute: Plaintiff Tran Thi Thu V requested Mr. Vuong Minh T and Mr. Vuong Minh H not to prevent Mrs. V from taking her husband Mr. Vuong Van A’s remains to her home land for burial, so the legal relationship in dispute is determined as “Dispute over request to terminate the act of preventing grave relocation“.
[3] Regarding the content of the case: During the resolution process, the plaintiff Mrs. Tran Thi Thu V and the defendants Mr. Vuong Minh T and Mr. Vuong Minh H consistently determined that Mrs. V had previously requested to use the land of Mr. Vuong Minh T and Mr. Vuong Minh H to bury her husband Mr. Vuong Van A, and currently Mr. A’s grave is still located on Mr. Vuong Minh T’s land. Mrs. Tran Thi Thu V requested the Court to compel Mr. Vuong Minh T and Mr. Vuong Minh H not to prevent her from taking her husband’s remains to her home land for burial. The defendants Mr. Vuong Minh T and Mr. Vuong Minh H do not agree with Mrs. V’s request on the grounds that their uncle Mr. Vuong Van A currently has no relatives nearby to care for the grave.
[4] The Trial Panel finds: During the resolution process, the parties agreed that on the land of Mr. Vuong Minh T and Mr. Vuong Minh H, there is a grave of Mr. Vuong Van A; Mrs. V is the legal wife of Mr. Vuong Van A, and she now wishes to relocate her husband’s remains to her home land for burial and care. Considering the request to relocate the remains of Mr. Vuong Van A, the husband of the plaintiff Mrs. Tran Thi Thu V, is grounded and consistent with the customs and traditions of the Vietnamese people. The fact that Mr. Vuong Minh T and Mr. Vuong Minh H raised the above reasons to prevent Mrs. V from relocating her husband’s remains is unreasonable, because Mrs. V’s relationship as the wife of Mr. Vuong Van A is recognized by law as well as by the parties, so she has the right to visit, care for, and manage her husband’s grave, which is consistent with morality and the fine customs and traditions of the Vietnamese people and in accordance with Clause 1 Article 5 of the Civil Code 2015.
[5] Based on the above findings, the Trial Panel sees that the lawsuit request of the plaintiff Mrs. Tran Thi Thu V is grounded and should be accepted. Therefore, the defendants Mr. Vuong Minh T and Mr. Vuong Minh H are compelled to terminate the act of obstructing Mrs. Tran Thi Thu V from relocating her husband Mr. Vuong Van A’s remains.
[6] Regarding first-instance civil court fees: Compel the defendants Mr. Vuong Minh T and Mr. Vuong Minh H to each pay a first-instance court fee of 300,000 VND.
[7] Refund to the plaintiff Mrs. Tran Thi Thu V the advance court fee of 300,000 VND according to receipt No. 0009710 dated April 24, 2019, of the Civil Judgment Enforcement Bureau of Chau Thanh District.
For the above reasons,
DECISION:
Pursuant to Clause 2 Article 4, Clause 14 Article 26, Point a Clause 1 Article 35, Point a Clause 1 Article 39 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015;
Pursuant to Article 4, Article 5, Article 14 of the Civil Code 2015;
Pursuant to Article 18 and Article 27 of the Ordinance on Court Fees and Charges No. 10/2009/PL-UBTVQH12 dated February 27, 2009;
Pronounced:
1. Accept the entire lawsuit request of the plaintiff Mrs. Tran Thi Thu V.
2. Compel the defendants Mr. Vuong Minh T and Mr. Vuong Minh H to terminate the act of obstructing Mrs. Tran Thi Thu V from relocating her husband Mr. Vuong Van A’s remains.
3. Regarding first-instance civil court fees: Apply Article 147 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015. Article 18 and Article 27 of the Ordinance on Court Fees and Charges No. 10/2009/PL-UBTVQH12 dated February 27, 2009;
Compel the defendants Mr. Vuong Minh T and Mr. Vuong Minh H to each pay a first-instance court fee of 300,000 VND.
Refund to the plaintiff Mrs. Tran Thi Thu V the advance court fee of 300,000 VND according to receipt No. 0009710 dated April 24, 2019, of the Civil Judgment Enforcement Bureau of Chau Thanh District.
In case the judgment or decision is enforced in accordance with Article 2 of the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement, the person entitled to civil judgment enforcement and the person subject to civil judgment enforcement have the right to agree on judgment enforcement, request judgment enforcement, voluntarily enforce the judgment, or be subject to coerced judgment enforcement in accordance with Articles 6, 7a, 7b, and 9 of the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement; the statute of limitations for judgment enforcement shall be implemented in accordance with Article 30 of the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement.
4. The parties have the right to appeal within 15 days from the date of pronouncement of the judgment. For parties absent from the trial or not present when the judgment was pronounced for a legitimate reason, the time limit for appeal shall be calculated from the date they receive the judgment or when it is validly served.
PRECEDENT CONTENT
“[4] … During the resolution process, the parties agreed that on the land of Mr. Vuong Minh T and Mr. Vuong Minh H, there is a grave of Mr. Vuong Van A; Mrs. V is the legal wife of Mr. Vuong Van A, and she now wishes to relocate her husband’s remains to her home land for burial and care. Considering the request to relocate the remains of Mr. Vuong Van A, the husband of the plaintiff Mrs. Tran Thi Thu V, is grounded and consistent with the customs and traditions of the Vietnamese people. The fact that Mr. Vuong Minh T and Mr. Vuong Minh H raised the above reasons to prevent Mrs. V from relocating her husband’s remains is unreasonable, because Mrs. V’s relationship as the wife of Mr. Vuong Van A is recognized by law as well as by the parties, so she has the right to visit, care for, and manage her husband’s grave, which is consistent with morality and the fine customs and traditions of the Vietnamese people and in accordance with Clause 1 Article 5 of the Civil Code 2015.”
