Precedent No. 71/2024/AL was adopted by the Council of Justices of the Supreme People’s Court on February 20, 21, 23, 2024, and announced under Decision 119A/QD-CA dated May 15, 2024, by the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court.
1. What is a precedent?
A precedent refers to the arguments and rulings in a judgment or decision that has taken legal effect, issued by a Court in a specific case, selected by the Council of Justices of the Supreme People’s Court, and announced as a precedent by the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court for other Courts to research and apply in adjudication. (Article 1 of Resolution 04/2019/NQ-HDTP)
Selected precedents must meet the following criteria:
– They must clarify legal provisions that are subject to different interpretations, analyze and explain legal issues and events, and identify the principles, approach, and legal norms to be applied in a specific case, or demonstrate fairness for issues not specifically regulated by law;
– They must possess normative value;
– They must guide the consistent application of law in adjudication.
2. Precedent No. 71/2024/AL on the termination of case resolution due to the matter having been resolved by a competent state agency’s effective decision and not falling under the Court’s jurisdiction
2.1. Source of precedent
Supervisory Review Decision No. 14/2022/DS-GDT dated April 28, 2022, of the Council of Justices of the Supreme People’s Court regarding the case “Dispute over land use rights and request to annul the complaint resolution decision of the People’s Committee” between plaintiff Ms. Dang Thi Thu H and defendant Ms. Nguyen Thi C; with 04 persons having related rights and obligations.
Location of precedent content:
Paragraphs 3, 4, and 6 of the “Court’s Opinion” section.
2.2. Overview of the precedent’s content
– Precedent situation:
A dispute over land use rights that has been resolved by an effective decision of a competent state agency. The plaintiff continues to initiate a civil lawsuit disputing the same land use rights and requests the annulment of the effective decision of the competent state agency. The plaintiff is not named on the certificate of land use rights under dispute.
– Legal solution:
In this case, the Court must terminate the resolution of the case on the grounds that the matter has been resolved by an effective decision of a competent state agency and does not fall under the Court’s jurisdiction.
Legal provisions related to the precedent:
– Clauses 1, 2 of Article 34 and points c, d of Clause 1 of Article 192, point g of Clause 1 of Article 217 of the Civil Procedure Code of Vietnam 2015;
– Article 38 of the Land Law 1993 (corresponding to Article 136 of the Land Law 2003; Article 203 of the Land Law of Vietnam 2013).
Keywords of the precedent:
“Not within the jurisdiction of the Court”; “Already resolved by an effective decision of a competent state agency”; “Termination of case resolution”.
CASE CONTENT
In the Statement of Claim dated December 8, 2014, and the Amended Statement of Claim dated May 18, 2015, the plaintiff, Ms. Dang Thi Thu H, presented:
Previously, the parents of Mr. Nguyen Tan T (who was her husband, deceased in 2007), Mr. Nguyen Tan K and Ms. Thai Thi Ho, received the transfer of 20,000 ha of rubber land from Ms. Le Thi S, of which 17,000 ha were registered according to the 1973 land registry extract, and approximately over 4 ha were not yet registered. Additionally, Mr. K and Ms. Ho also received the transfer of over 20,000 ha of rubber land from Ms. Hua Thi M, of which 17,000 ha were registered according to the 1973 land registry extract, and approximately over 4 ha were not yet registered. In 1975, Mr. K and Ms. H1 registered and declared the use of all the above-mentioned land with the local authorities. When Mr. K and Ms. Ho passed away, Mr. T registered and declared the land and was granted a certificate of land use rights by the People’s Committee of Q Commune, N District, Dong Nai province, on July 11, 1992.
Her family has always stably managed and used all the above-mentioned land. On December 8, 1987, Ms. Nguyen Thi C’s family faced many difficulties, so Mr. T allowed Ms. C to temporarily cultivate an area of about 2.5 sao of land to grow crops for economic purposes and to support her family. During cultivation, Ms. C encroached on more of her family’s land and also built a solid house on the borrowed land. Although the land was disputed in 1992, for some reason, Ms. C was still able to declare and pay tax in 1993. On October 9, 1998, Ms. C filed an application for a certificate of land use rights. The land area Ms. C applied for a certificate of land use rights was borrowed from her family for cultivation, the land was within the road safety corridor and was under dispute, yet for some reason, the Land Use Rights Granting Review Council of Q Commune confirmed the origin of Ms. C’s land as “given by Mr. T in 1987 and Ms. C used it stably in accordance with the planning”. On August 9, 2002, the People’s Committee of N District granted Ms. C a certificate of land use rights for an area of 2,526 m². On December 21, 2006, the People’s Committee of N District re-issued Ms. C a certificate of land use rights for an area of 1,962 m² of land.
She has repeatedly requested Ms. C to return the entire plot of land mentioned above, but Ms. C refused. Therefore, she requested the Court to compel Ms. C to return the said land area to her.
Defendant Ms. Nguyen Thi C presented:
In 1975, she moved from her hometown to the South to settle in Q commune, N district, Dong Nai province. At that time, her family consisted of herself, Ms. Nguyen Thi H2 (her sister), and Mr. Nguyen Thanh L (her son).
In the early days of settling down, she worked as a rubber tapper for the rubber plantation owned by Mr. Nguyen Tan T. However, because her family had no land for cultivation, her family cleared weeds and cultivated crops (sweet potatoes, beans, corn, etc.) on the land currently under dispute. In reality, she and her family did not know who managed the land. At that time, Mr. T lived in Ho Chi Minh City and occasionally came to oversee the land and told her that the land her family was cultivating belonged to him, so she expressed her desire to request this land for cultivation and Mr. T agreed. On December 8, 1987, Mr. T wrote a “Confirmation Letter” for her for the aforementioned land area.
After Mr. T wrote the letter giving the land, her family continued to manage and cultivate pepper and coffee on the land. In 1994-1995, Mr. T wanted to expand the rubber planting area, so he contacted the new commune People’s Committee and households living on the land adjacent to his rubber plantation to negotiate compensation (including her family), but her family did not agree to negotiate because they had no other land area for cultivation besides the aforementioned land. In 1995, Mr. T disputed with her. In 2000, Mr. T’s family again sued her family to reclaim the land. On November 21, 2000, the People’s Committee of N district issued Decision No. 1627/QD, and on December 19, 2001, the People’s Committee of D province issued Decision No. 4835/QD dismissing Mr. T’s complaint about the disputed land area given to her family in 1987. Therefore, she did not agree with Ms. H’s request to reclaim the aforementioned land area.
In Civil Case Termination Decision No. 55/2018/QDST-DS dated October 31, 2018, the People’s Court of Dong Nai province decided:
To terminate the resolution of civil case No. 41/2015/TLST-DS dated October 14, 2015, regarding “Dispute over land use rights and request to annul the complaint resolution decision of the People’s Committee” between:
Plaintiff: Ms. Dang Thi Thu H, born in 1953; address: 271/8 N street, X Ward, P District, Ho Chi Minh City.
Authorized representative of Ms. H: Mr. Sin Thoai K, born in 1973 (as per authorization document dated December 22, 2014); Permanent residence: 1/5J P street, V Ward, G District, Ho Chi Minh City (Contact address: 244 B street, Ward 1, District 7, Ho Chi Minh City)
Defendant: Ms. Nguyen Thi C, born in 1939, address: F3/113 S hamlet, Q commune, N district, Dong Nai province.
Persons with related rights and obligations:
1. People’s Committee of D province; address: No. 02 V street, T ward, B city, Dong Nai province.
2. People’s Committee of N district, Dong Nai province; address: L hamlet, X commune, N district, Dong Nai province.
3. Mr. Nguyen Thanh L, address: F3/113 S hamlet, Q commune, N district, Dong Nai province. 4. Ms. Nguyen Thi H2, address: F3/113 S hamlet, Q commune, N district, Dong Nai province. Consequences of terminating the case resolution:
The parties do not have the right to initiate a lawsuit requesting the Court to resolve this civil case again.
The first-instance Court also decided on court fees, other procedural costs, and the right to appeal.
On December 12, 2018, Ms. H appealed the aforementioned Civil Case Termination Decision.
In Decision No. 154/2019/QD-PT dated May 8, 2019, on resolving the appeal against the decision to terminate the case, the High People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City decided:
To accept the appeal of Ms. Dang Thi Thu H, annul Civil Case Termination Decision No. 55/2018/QDST-DS dated October 31, 2018, of the People’s Court of Dong Nai province, and transfer the case file to the People’s Court of Dong Nai province to continue resolving the case in accordance with legal provisions.
After the Decision on resolving the appeal against the decision to terminate the case was issued, the Chief Justice of the People’s Court of Dong Nai province proposed to the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court to protest Decision No. 154/2019/QD-PT dated May 8, 2019, of the High People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City, on resolving the appeal against the decision to terminate the case, under supervisory review procedures.
In Supervisory Review Protest Decision No. 06/2022/KN-DS dated March 14, 2022, the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court protested Decision No. 154/2019/QD-PT dated May 8, 2019, of the High People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City, on resolving the appeal against the decision to terminate the case; requested the Council of Justices of the Supreme People’s Court to conduct a supervisory review, annul the aforementioned Decision on resolving the appeal against the decision to terminate the case, and uphold Civil Case Termination Decision No. 55/2018/QDST-DS dated October 31, 2018, of the People’s Court of Dong Nai province.
At the supervisory review hearing, the representative of the Supreme People’s Procuracy agreed with the Supervisory Review Protest Decision of the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court.
COURT’S OPINION
[1] The area of 1,962 m² of land disputed by the parties is parcel No. 72, map sheet No. 17 (old parcel 56, map sheet No. 12), map sheet No. 17, in Q commune, Ng district, Dong Nai province.
[2] In 1995, the aforementioned parcel of land had not yet been granted a Certificate of Land Use Rights. Mr. Nguyen Tan T (Ms. H’s husband) disputed the land use rights with Ms. C, so the authority to resolve the land dispute belonged to the People’s Committee of N district, as stipulated in Clause 2, Article 38 of the Land Law 1993.
[3] On November 21, 2000, the People’s Committee of N district issued Complaint Resolution Decision No. 1627/QD.CT.UBH, dismissing Mr. T’s complaint about reclaiming the land area of 2,152.15 m² that Mr. T had given to Ms. C on December 8, 1987. Disagreeing with this Decision, Mr. T continued to complain to the Chairman of the People’s Committee of D province. On December 19, 2001, the Chairman of the People’s Committee of D province issued Complaint Resolution Decision No. 4835/QD.CT.UBT, with the content: Acknowledging that Decision No. 1627/QD.CT.UBH dated November 21, 2000, of the Chairman of the People’s Committee of N district regarding the resolution of Mr. T’s and Ms. C’s complaint was in accordance with legal provisions; dismissing Mr. T’s complaint.
. [4] Thus, the land area disputed by Ms. H and Ms. C has been resolved by Decision No. 4835/QD.CT.UBT dated December 19, 2001, of the Chairman of the People’s Committee of D province, which has legal effect.
[5] On August 4, 2002, Ms. C was granted a Certificate of Land Use Rights. On December 21, 2006, Ms. C was re-issued a Certificate of Land Use Rights.
[6] Therefore, the People’s Court of Dong Nai province’s termination of the case resolution according to point c, Clause 1, Article 192 and point g, Clause 1, Article 217 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015 was correct, and the High People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City’s annulment of Civil Case Termination Decision No. 55/2018/QDST-DS dated October 31, 2018, of the People’s Court of Dong Nai province and transfer of the case file to the People’s Court of Dong Nai province to continue resolving the case in accordance with legal provisions
was baseless.
For these reasons,
DECISION
Based on point a, Clause 2, Article 337, Clause 2, Article 343, Article 344 of the Civil Procedure Code.
1. To accept Supervisory Review Protest Decision No. 06/2022/KN-DS dated March 14, 2022, of the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court.
2. To annul Decision No. 154/2019/QD-PT dated May 8, 2019, of the High People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City, on resolving the appeal against the decision to terminate the civil case “Dispute over land use rights and request to annul the complaint resolution decision of the People’s Committee” between plaintiff Ms. Dang Thi Thu H and defendant Ms. Nguyen Thi C and other persons with related rights and obligations.
3. To uphold Civil Case Termination Decision No. 55/2018/QDST-DS dated October 31, 2018, of the People’s Court of Dong Nai province.
CONTENT OF THE PRECEDENT
“[3] On November 21, 2000, the People’s Committee of N district issued Complaint Resolution Decision No. 1627/QD.CT.UBH, dismissing Mr. T’s complaint about reclaiming the land area of 2,152.15m that Mr. T had given to Ms. C on December 8, 1987. Disagreeing with this Decision, Mr. T continued to complain to the Chairman of the People’s Committee of D province. On December 19, 2001, the Chairman of the People’s Committee of D province issued Complaint Resolution Decision No. 4835/QD.CT.UBT, with the content: Acknowledging that Decision No. 1627/QD.CT.UBH dated November 21, 2000, of the Chairman of the People’s Committee of N district regarding the resolution of Mr. T’s and Ms. C’s complaint was in accordance with legal provisions; dismissing Mr. T’s complaint.
[4] Thus, the land area disputed by Ms. H and Ms. C has been resolved by Decision No. 4835/QD.CT.UBT dated December 19, 2001, of the Chairman of the People’s Committee of D province, which has legal effect.
[6] Therefore, the People’s Court of Dong Nai province’s termination of the case resolution according to point c, Clause 1, Article 192 and point g, Clause 1, Article 217 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015 was correct, and the High People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City’s annulment of Civil Case Termination Decision No. 55/2018/QDST-DS dated October 31, 2018, of the People’s Court of Dong Nai province and transfer of the case file to the People’s Court of Dong Nai province to continue resolving the case in accordance with legal provisions was baseless.”
