Precedent No. 72/2024/AL was adopted by the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court on February 20, 21, and 23, 2024, and published under Decision No. 119A/QD-CA dated May 15, 2024, by the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court.
1. What is a Precedent?
Precedents are arguments and rulings in legally effective judgments or 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 has value in clarifying legal provisions that have different interpretations; analyzing and explaining legal issues and events; and pointing out principles, guidelines for handling, and legal norms to be applied in a specific case, or demonstrating fairness towards issues for which there are no specific legal provisions;
– It is exemplary;
– It has value in guiding the uniform application of the law in adjudication.
2. Precedent No. 72/2024/AL on the determination of inheritance estate as land use rights in case the will does not specify the land area
2.1. Source of the Precedent
Cassation Decision No. 60/2022/DS-GDT dated December 19, 2022, of the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court regarding the civil case “Dispute over inheritance of land use rights” between the plaintiff, Ms. Nguyen Thi G, and the defendant, Mr. Nguyen Van U; persons with related rights and obligations including 19 individuals.
Location of the precedent content:
Paragraphs 4, 5, and 8 of the “Court’s Assessment” section.
2.2. Overview of the Precedent
– Precedent Situation:
The inheritance estate consists of land use rights disposed of under a lawful will; the content of the will identifies the four boundaries (adjacencies) but does not specify the exact land area, and there is no dispute regarding these four boundaries.
– Legal Solution:
In this case, the Court must determine the inheritance estate as land use rights based on the actual measured land area according to the four boundaries specified in the will.
Legal provisions related to the precedent:
Articles 624, 630, and 634 of the Civil Code of Vietnam 2015.
Keywords of the precedent:
“Inheritance estate”; “Lawful will”; “Testamentary inheritance”; “Determined by four boundaries”.
CASE CONTENT
In the lawsuit petition dated March 15, 2017, and testimonies during the case resolution, the plaintiff, Ms. Nguyen Thi G, stated:
Her parents were Mr. Nguyen Van M (died 1998) and Mrs. Nguyen Thị B (died 2010); Mr. M and Mrs. B had 08 children including: Nguyen Thị H, Nguyen Thị M1, Nguyen Van C (deceased, year unknown), Nguyen Thị G, Nguyen Van K (died 2016), Nguyen Van L, Nguyen Thị P, and Nguyen Van U. The inheritance estate left by Mr. M and Mrs. B is a plot of land with an area of 32,500m2 belonging to map sheet No. 10D, plot numbers 809 and 810 at Hamlet N, Commune T, District C (now District P), Ca Mau Province.
The origin of the disputed land was reclaimed by Mrs. B’s parents; it was then given to the couple Mr. M and Mrs. B to manage and use. In 1993, Mr. M declared it in the cadastral register under map sheet No. 10D, plots 809 and 810, and was granted a Land Use Right Certificate by the People’s Committee of District C.
In 1994 and 1995, Mr. Nguyen Van U moved out to live on a piece of land in Hamlet A, Commune T, District P, while she lived with her parents since childhood and has managed and used the aforementioned 32,500m2 land from then until now.
On May 16, 1998, Mr. M made a will leaving her a land area of 15 “cong tam cay” (traditional measurement unit), while the remaining 10 “cong” would go to whoever performs the ancestor worship. Mr. M was of sound mind when making the will. In 2000, Mr. U forged Mr. M’s signature to apply for a land use right certificate, and the District C People’s Committee issued the certificate in Mr. U’s name without her knowledge.
In 2004, Mrs. B held a family meeting and agreed to give her the entire 32,500m2 of land for management and worship purposes. The family meeting minutes were certified by the People’s Committee of Commune T.
In 2006, Mrs. B continued to make a will giving her the entire aforementioned land. After Mrs. B died, she continued to manage and use the land. However, in 2016, Mr. U obstructed her from using the land, claiming that this land had been given to him by their parents.
Therefore, she filed a lawsuit requesting the Court to cancel the Land Use Right Certificate issued to Mr. U by the District C People’s Committee on November 15, 2000, and to recognize her land use rights according to the will for the area of 32,500m2 (actual measurement is 35,180.7m2). The house on the land belonged to Mr. M and Mrs. B; Mr. U only stood as the builder while living with their parents, and when Mr. U moved elsewhere, she used and repaired it.
The defendant, Mr. Nguyen Van U, stated:
He agreed with the blood relationship as presented by Ms. G.
The origin of the disputed land was reclaimed by Mr. M and Mrs. B in 1950. In 1983, Ms. G built a temporary house on the frontage of the disputed land for business, while he, as the youngest son, continued to live with and care for their parents and directly managed and used the land. Around 1993, he built the house using family funds because he was living with the family at that time. In 1998, his parents gifted him the land, supported by family meeting minutes, which he submitted to the competent authorities to be granted a land use right certificate. In the same year, 1998, he declared and registered it according to regulations and was issued a Land Use Right Certificate by the District C People’s Committee on November 15, 2000.
After Mr. M died, due to a difficult life, he moved elsewhere for work, while his wife and children still lived at the aforementioned house and land. In 2010, Mrs. B died; to facilitate Ms. G’s income, he moved elsewhere to live, leaving the house for Ms. G to borrow for living and farming. The land that he and his wife are currently using in Hamlet I, Commune T was purchased with their own money.
Regarding the parents making a will and holding a family meeting to give the land to Ms. G, he was unaware.
In a counterclaim dated March 16, 2018, Mr. U requested the Court to compel Ms. G to return the entire disputed land area and the level-4 house on the land to him.
Persons with related rights and obligations stated:
1. Ms. Nguyen Thị M1 stated: Ms. G lived with their parents since childhood. The parents making a will to give Ms. G the land was witnessed by her; when Mrs. B held the family meeting, she attended, and Mr. U was not present. The house on the land was built by the parents because all children were living together at that time. The land Mr. U is currently managing and using (about 06 ha in Hamlet I, Commune T) consists of a part sold to Mrs. B by the 7th sibling and a part given by the 6th sibling to support the parents, but Mr. U did not care for them. Regarding the disputed land and assets, she does not request a share of the inheritance; she requests the Court to resolve the disputed land in favor of Ms. G according to the parents’ will.
2. Mr. Nguyen Van L stated: The house was built by the parents and siblings, not by Mr. U. When the parents were alive, they made a will and held a family meeting to give the disputed land to Ms. G. Regarding the land Mr. U is managing, one part was sold by him to Mr. U and one part was given by the 6th brother to care for the parents. He requested the Court to grant the disputed land to Ms. G according to the parents’ will.
3. Ms. Nguyen Thị P stated: When the parents were alive, she heard her father say he would give Ms. G 5 “cong” of land. She does not request a share of the inheritance but only requests to leave 05 “cong” of burial ground which no one has the right to divide.
4. Ms. Nguyen Thị H stated: Previously, when the parents were alive, they said they made a will to leave the disputed land to Ms. G, but she does not remember when because it was a long time ago. Ms. G has lived on the disputed land since childhood and was the one who nurtured the parents while they were alive; after they died, Ms. G was the one performing ancestor worship. Mr. U does not manage the disputed land because he has his own land.
5. Mr. Nguyen Van V stated: He requests a share of the inheritance for the portion his father, Mr. C, was entitled to.
6. Mr. Nguyen Van T: Agreed with the statement of Mr. V.
7. Ms. Nguyen Thuy H: Requested the Court to resolve according to the law.
In the First-Instance Civil Judgment No. 04/2019/DS-ST dated April 16, 2019, the People’s Court of Ca Mau Province decided:
Accept the lawsuit petition for inheritance division of Ms. Nguyen Thi G against Mr. Nguyen Van U.
Ms. G is entitled to inherit the estate left by Mr. Nguyen Van M and Mrs. Nguyen Thị B including: The land according to actual measurement of 35,180.7 m2 located in Hamlet N, Commune T, District P, Ca Mau Province (boundaries specified) and assets attached to the land including: 01 main house (6.7m wide, 8.7m long, area 58.29m2, wooden frame, plank walls, corrugated iron roof, earth floor, built in 1993, repaired by Ms. G in 2016); 01 auxiliary house (11.4m wide, 21.3m long, area 242.82m2, brick masonry, steel frame, concrete columns, tin walls, galvanized iron roof, earth floor, built in 2012); 01 drilled well and crops on the land.
Cancel the Land Use Right Certificate No. R202211 issued on November 15, 2000, by the People’s Committee of District C, Ca Mau Province in the name of Mr. Nguyen Van U.
Do not accept the counterclaim of Mr. Nguyen Van U regarding compelling Ms. G, Ms. H, and Mr. T1 to return the entire disputed land area and the house on the land to Mr. U.
Additionally, the trial court decided on court fees, litigation costs, and the parties’ right to appeal according to the law.
On April 26, 2019, the defendant, Mr. Nguyen Van U, filed an appeal against the entire aforementioned first-instance judgment.
In the Appellate Civil Judgment No. 646/2019/DS-PT dated December 13, 2019, the High People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City decided:
Do not accept the appeal of the defendant, Mr. Nguyen Van U; uphold the First-Instance Civil Judgment No. 04/2019/DS-ST dated April 16, 2019, of the People’s Court of Ca Mau Province.
The appellate court also decided on court fees, valuation and appraisal costs, and execution obligations.
In the Cassation Protest Decision No. 01/QD-VKS-DS dated March 4, 2022, the Prosecutor General of the Supreme People’s Procuracy protested the Appellate Civil Judgment No. 646/2019/DS-PT; requested the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court to conduct a cassation review to cancel the aforementioned appellate judgment and the first-instance judgment, and remit the case file to the People’s Court of Ca Mau Province for first-instance retrial according to the law.
At the cassation hearing, the representative of the Supreme People’s Procuracy requested the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court to accept the Protest Decision of the Prosecutor General.
COURT’S ASSESSMENT:
[1] The disputed land has an actual measured area of 35,180.7m2 belonging to plot numbers 809, 810 of map sheet No. 10D (according to 1993 cadastral records), now plot numbers 135, 136 of map sheet No. 10 (according to 2006 cadastral records) in Hamlet N, Commune T, District P, Ca Mau Province, originating from Mr. Nguyen Van M (died 1998) and Mrs. Nguyen Thị B (died 2010). Currently, on the land, there is 01 main house of 58.29m2 (built in 1993), a drilled well, crops, and a burial area with 03 graves.
[2] Mr. M and Mrs. B had 08 children: Ms. Nguyen Thị H, Ms. Nguyen Thị M1, Mr. Nguyen Van C (deceased), Ms. Nguyen Thị G, Mr. Nguyen Van K (died 2016), Mr. Nguyen Van L, Ms. Nguyen Thị P, Mr. Nguyen Van U.
[3] During the case resolution, Ms. Nguyen Thị G claimed that Mr. M and Mrs. B gave her the aforementioned land in 1998; after being given the land, Ms. G managed and used it continuously and repaired the house. Meanwhile, Mr. Nguyen Van U did not admit the parents made a will to give Ms. G the entire land, but claimed that in 1998 his parents gave him that area and in 2000 he was granted a land use right certificate by the District C People’s Committee.
[4] According to the Will dated May 16, 1998, Mr. M and Mrs. B gave Ms. G a land area of 15 “cong tam lon”. Although the will did not state a specific area, only “15 cong tam lon”, it listed the four boundaries of the plot: Frontage bordering Canal N, East (rear) bordering Nguyen Van L1, North bordering Ly Tung H1, West bordering Quach Van M2. Thus, the land given to Ms. G by her parents has a defined campus, bordering Canal N and other residents’ land, and currently there is no dispute over these boundaries. After Mr. M died, in the Family Meeting Minutes dated June 15, 2004, and the Will dated September 9, 2006, Mrs. B expressed the intent to give Ms. G the entire 32,500m2 of land, which is consistent with the fact that in 1998, the couple Mr. M and Mrs. B made a will giving Ms. G the land according to its boundaries.
[5] The Will dated May 16, 1998, made by Mr. M and Mrs. B was signed by the children (including Mr. U) and certified by local authorities; the Family Meeting Minutes dated June 15, 2004, signed by the children (excluding Mr. U) and certified by local authorities, and the Will dated September 9, 2006, certified by local authorities, show that at the time of the will and family meeting, none of Mr. M and Mrs. B’s children objected to them giving Ms. G the entire disputed land. They all confirmed that because Ms. G lived with the parents since childhood, the parents and siblings agreed to let Ms. G manage the land to worship the parents. Separately, Mr. U claimed he was gifted the land by Mr. M and Mrs. B in 1998, leading to the District C People’s Committee issuing him a certificate on November 15, 2000, but Mr. U failed to provide evidence proving the parents gifted him the land.
[6] Regarding the declaration, registration, and issuance of the Land Use Right Certificate for the disputed land: Cadastral Information Sheet No. 32/PCCTT dated December 29, 2016, of the District P Land Registration Office Branch shows Mr. M registered/declared it in 1993 and was granted a certificate by District C People’s Committee; in 2006, Ms. G registered/declared the land use rights. In Official Dispatch No. 1922/UBND dated October 23, 2018, the District P People’s Committee stated that the application file for Mr. U’s certificate was lost. On the other hand, in the Mediation Minutes dated February 23, 2017, of the Commune T People’s Committee, Mr. U stated that Mr. M authorized him to apply for the certificate to use as collateral for a bank loan.
[7] In 1998, Mr. U did not live with his parents but lived in Hamlet I, Commune T; he also managed and used a land area of about 06 – 07ha. Ms. G, Ms. M, and Mr. L all confirmed the land Mr. U uses in Hamlet I was given to him by Mr. M and Mrs. B (including a portion Mr. L transferred to Mr. M and Mrs. B and a portion the 6th child gave to care for the parents). Mr. U claimed the land in Hamlet I was partly granted by a collective and partly transferred, but he failed to provide evidence.
[8] When resolving the case, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court relied on the content of the will, family meeting minutes, testimonies of Mr. M and Mrs. B’s children, and Ms. G’s continuous management and use of the land since 1998, as well as the land declaration/registration, to accept Ms. G’s lawsuit and recognize her inheritance of the parents’ estate, which is grounded in evidence.
For these reasons,
DECISION:
Pursuant to point a, clause 2, Article 337 and clause 1, Article 343 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015;
1. Do not accept the Cassation Protest Decision No. 01/QD-VKS-DS dated March 4, 2022, of the Prosecutor General of the Supreme People’s Procuracy.
2. Uphold the Appellate Civil Judgment No. 646/2019/DS-PT dated December 13, 2019, of the High People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City.
PRECEDENT CONTENT
“[4] According to the Will dated May 16, 1998, Mr. M and Mrs. B gave Ms. G a land area of 15 “cong tam lon”. Although the will did not state a specific area, only “15 cong tam lon”, it listed the four boundaries of the plot: Frontage bordering Canal N, East (rear) bordering Nguyen Van L1, North bordering Ly Tung H1, West bordering Quach Van M2. Thus, the land given to Ms. G by her parents has a defined campus, bordering Canal N and other residents’ land, and currently there is no dispute over these boundaries. After Mr. M died, in the Family Meeting Minutes dated June 15, 2004, and the Will dated September 9, 2006, Mrs. B expressed the intent to give Ms. G the entire 32,500m2 of land, which is consistent with the fact that in 1998, the couple Mr. M and Mrs. B made a will giving Ms. G the land according to its boundaries.
[5] The Will dated May 16, 1998, made by Mr. M and Mrs. B was signed by the children (including Mr. U) and certified by local authorities; the Family Meeting Minutes dated June 15, 2004, signed by the children (excluding Mr. U) and certified by local authorities, and the Will dated September 9, 2006, certified by local authorities, show that at the time of the will and family meeting, none of Mr. M and Mrs. B’s children objected to them giving Ms. G the entire disputed land. They all confirmed that because Ms. G lived with the parents since childhood, the parents and siblings agreed to let Ms. G manage the land to worship the parents. Separately, Mr. U claimed he was gifted the land by Mr. M and Mrs. B in 1998, leading to the District C People’s Committee issuing him a certificate on November 15, 2000, but Mr. U failed to provide evidence proving the parents gifted him the land.
[8] When resolving the case, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court relied on the content of the will, family meeting minutes, testimonies of Mr. M and Mrs. B’s children, and Ms. G’s continuous management and use of the land since 1998, as well as the land declaration/registration, to accept Ms. G’s lawsuit and recognize her inheritance of the parents’ estate, which is grounded in evidence.
