Precedent No. 80/2025/AL was adopted by the Council of Justices of the Supreme People’s Court on December 24, 2025, and published under Decision No. 339a/QD-CA dated December 25, 2025, 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 Court on a specific case, 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:
– It contains value in clarifying legal provisions that have different interpretations; analyzes and explains legal issues and events; and identifies the principles, methods of handling, and legal norms to be applied in a specific case or demonstrates equity toward issues not yet specifically regulated by law;
– It possesses a standard nature;
– It contains guiding value for the uniform application of law in adjudication.
2. Precedent No. 80/2025/AL on the gifting of lottery tickets by a husband or wife
2.1. Source of the precedent
Cassation Decision No. 148/2023/DS-GDT dated August 9, 2023, of the Judicial Committee of the High People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City regarding the civil case “Dispute over a property gift contract” between the plaintiff, Mrs. Nguyen Thi Thu D, along with 17 other plaintiffs, and the defendant, Mr. Tran Thanh T; and 05 persons with related rights and obligations.
Location of the precedent content:
Paragraph 4 of the “Court’s Assessment” section.
2.2. Summary of the precedent content
– Precedent situation:
One spouse gifts a property, which is an unopened lottery ticket, to another person; the recipient of the lottery ticket does not know, or is not required to know, whether the gifted lottery ticket is the common property or separate property of the husband and wife. Subsequently, this lottery ticket wins a prize.
– Legal solution:
In this case, the Court must determine that the unopened lottery ticket gifted is movable property not subject to ownership registration, and the gifting of the property does not require the consent of the spouse of the donor.
Legal provisions related to the precedent:
– Article 457, Clause 1 of Article 458 of the Civil Code of Vietnam 2015;
– Clause 2 of Article 32 and Article 35 of the Law on Marriage and Family of Vietnam 2014 (amended and supplemented in 2025).
Keywords of the precedent:
“Property gift contract”; “Gifting lottery tickets”; “Movable property not subject to ownership registration”; “No consent required from the husband or wife”.
CASE NARRATIVE:
Mrs. Nguyen Thi Thu D worked as a laborer at the P stainless steel furniture production facility owned by Mr. Tran Thanh T. In the early afternoon of January 7, 2021, while Mrs. D and many other workers were working, Mr. Tran Thanh T purchased several lottery tickets and gave Mrs. D 01 (one) ticket with the number 317626 issued by Lottery Company A, with the drawing on the same day, and said that if this ticket wins this afternoon, it would be shared equally among the workers present that day. The act of Mr. T giving the ticket to Mrs. D was witnessed by many people, including Mrs. Pham Thu H, Mrs. Trinh Thị L1, Mrs. Huynh Thi Thu V, Mrs. Nguyen Thi Kim L, and Mrs. Huynh Thi Bich T1.
At approximately 4:45 PM on the same day, Mrs. D asked Mr. Nguyen Thanh X to check the lottery results, and the ticket Mr. T had given her earlier that afternoon won the special prize worth 2,000,000,000 VND. Mrs. D immediately informed Mr. T that the ticket had won the special prize. Mr. T told Mrs. D to bring the ticket so he could check it again. After confirming it was indeed the winning ticket, Mr. T put the ticket in his shirt pocket and told Mrs. D, Mr. X, and Mrs. L not to make a fuss, to let him claim the prize on their behalf, and that on the afternoon of the 28th of the Lunar New Year when they break for the holiday, he would distribute the money to the workers in the workshop. He argued that if he shared it now, they would all stop working and there would be no one to do the job. Since Mr. T was the owner of the facility and January 7, 2021, was the 25th day of the 11th lunar month, Mrs. D trusted him and did not demand the return of the ticket. By the 28th of the Lunar New Year, Mr. T only gave the workers Tet bonuses and did not fulfill his promise to share the lottery prize money.
Since the special prize was worth 2,000,000,000 VND, minus 10% personal income tax = 200,000,000 VND, the actual amount received was 1,800,000,000 VND. Subtracting the total Tet bonus of 183,000,000 VND that the 18 plaintiffs received, Mr. T still held 1,617,000,000 VND belonging to the plaintiffs. Now, the plaintiffs are suing, requesting Mr. Tran Thanh T to pay each plaintiff an equal share of 85,105,000 VND.
On November 9, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a supplemental claim, requesting Mr. T to pay late payment interest at a rate of 10%/year (0.83%/month), calculated from February 9, 2021, to November 9, 2021, with total interest amounting to 91,459,000 VND, and to continue calculating interest until the date of the first-instance trial.
The defendant, Mr. Tran Thanh T, presented:
He admitted that on January 7, 2021, he purchased 01 (one) lottery ticket issued by Lottery Company A, number 317626, with the drawing that afternoon. Because he used a basic keypad mobile phone and could not access the Internet to check the results, at the end of the afternoon, he gave the ticket to Mrs. D to check the results via Mr. X’s smartphone. After discovering the ticket won the special prize, Mrs. D returned the ticket to him. Mrs. D’s claim that he gave her the ticket is incorrect. He did not give Mrs. D any ticket; it was his, and he only asked Mrs. D to check it for him. On January 8, 2021, he claimed the prize. When the workers went on Lunar New Year break, he gave each worker an amount of money as a Tet gift, and at that time, no one questioned the distribution of the special prize money. Therefore, he does not agree with the plaintiffs’ claims.
Persons with related rights and obligations:
Mrs. Nguyen Thi Thuy D presented: she is the wife of Mr. T. She agreed with Mr. T’s statement and had no independent claims.
Mr. Truong Tran Hoai T6 presented: Mrs. D’s claim that on January 7, 2021, he witnessed Mr. T giving Mrs. D the ticket is incorrect. Thus, when Mrs. D told him about the incident and suggested he join the lawsuit against Mr. T, he refused. He believed the plaintiffs’ lawsuit was incorrect and requested a trial in his absence.
Mr. Le Van T2 presented: he did not witness the event of Mr. T giving Mrs. D the ticket on January 7, 2021. Later, he heard some people recount that Mr. T won the lottery; after Mr. T won, he gave him 20,000,000 VND. He requested a trial in his absence.
Mr. Huynh Tan Chi Thanh H1: on January 7, 2021, he was working at Mr. T’s facility but did not witness Mr. T giving Mrs. D the ticket. Later, he heard some people recount that Mr. T won the lottery; after Mr. T won, he gave him 20,000,000 VND. He requested a trial in his absence.
Mr. Tong Phuoc H2: on January 7, 2021, he was working at Mr. T’s facility but did not witness Mr. T giving Mrs. D the ticket. Later, he heard some people recount that Mr. T won the lottery; after Mr. T won, he gave him 20,000,000 VND. He requested a trial in his absence.
In Civil First-Instance Judgment No. 67/2022/DS-ST dated August 15, 2022, the People’s Court of Long Ho District, Vinh Long Province decided (summary):
– To partially accept the plaintiffs’ claims; to compel defendant Tran Thanh T to pay the plaintiffs: Nguyen Thi Thu D, Nguyen Thanh X, Nguyen Thi Kim L, Huynh Thi Thu V, Huynh Thi Bich T1, Pham Thu H, Trinh Thi L1, Pham Thi Hong T2, Vo Van C, Truong Van Muoi H3, Banh Thanh T3, Huynh Lam T4, Ho Cong H4, Vo Van L2, Cao Minh Đ, Nguyen Thi Kieu T5, Ho Quoc S, Tran Van T7 an amount of 42,552,500 VND each. The total is: 765,945,000 VND.
– To reject the plaintiffs’ claim for interest.
(Additionally, the first-instance court decided on court fees, the rights and obligations of the parties during the judgment enforcement phase, and the right to appeal).
On August 19, 2022, Mr. Tran Thanh T filed an appeal, requesting the appellate court to reject all claims of the plaintiffs.
On August 28, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an appeal, requesting the appellate court to accept all claims of the plaintiffs.
On August 29, 2022, the Chief Procurator of the People’s Procuracy of Long Ho District, Vinh Long Province, issued a decision to protest the first-instance judgment via appellate procedures; requesting the appellate court to rule in favor of accepting the plaintiffs’ claims and to adjust the first-instance civil court fees.
In Civil Appellate Judgment No. 10/2023/DS-PT dated January 13, 2023, the People’s Court of Vinh Long Province decided (summary):
– To partially accept the plaintiffs’ appeal and partially accept the protest; to reject the defendant’s appeal.
– To amend Civil First-Instance Judgment No. 67/2022/DS-ST dated August 15, 2022, of the People’s Court of Long Ho District, Vinh Long Province.
– To partially accept the plaintiffs’ claims; to compel defendant Tran Thanh T to pay the plaintiffs: Nguyen Thi Thu D, Nguyen Thanh X, Nguyen Thi Kim L, Huynh Thi Thu V, Huynh Thi Bich T1, Pham Thu H, Trinh Thị L1, Pham Thị Hong T2, Vo Van C, Truong Van Muoi H3, Banh Thanh T3, Huynh Lam T4, Ho Cong H4, Vo Van L2, Cao Minh Đ, Nguyen Thi Kieu T5, Ho Quoc S, Tran Van T7 an amount of 85,105,000 VND each.
– To reject the plaintiffs’ claim for interest.
(Additionally, the appellate court decided on court fees and the rights and obligations of the parties during the judgment enforcement phase).
On February 9, 2023, Mr. Tran Thanh T filed a request for a cassation review of the aforementioned civil appellate judgment.
In Decision No. 125/QDKNGĐT-VKS-DS dated May 25, 2023, the Chief Procurator of the High People’s Procuracy in Ho Chi Minh City protested the aforementioned civil appellate judgment via cassation procedures. The protest requested the Judicial Committee of the High People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City to conduct a cassation trial to annul the entire Civil Appellate Judgment No. 10/2023/DS-PT dated January 13, 2023, of the People’s Court of Vinh Long Province and annul Civil First-Instance Judgment No. 67/2022/DS-ST dated August 15, 2022, of the People’s Court of Long Ho District, Vinh Long Province, for a first-instance retrial in accordance with the law.
At the cassation trial, the representative of the High People’s Procuracy in Ho Chi Minh City requested the Trial Panel to accept the protest of the Chief Procurator of the High People’s Procuracy in Ho Chi Minh City.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT:
[1] The plaintiffs consistently affirmed that on January 7, 2021, Mr. Tran Thanh T gave Mrs. Nguyen Thi Thu D 01 (one) lottery ticket number 317626 issued by Lottery Company A, which was drawn on January 7, 2021, and promised that if it won, the prize would be shared among all workers present at the workshop on that day. The defendant (Mr. Tran Thanh T) admitted giving the plaintiff (Mrs. Nguyen Thi Thu D) the aforementioned ticket, but claimed it was not to give to Mrs. D and the workers, but only to ask Mrs. D to check the results. Regardless of whether the transaction between Mr. T and Mrs. D is a property gift contract as regulated in Article 466 of the Civil Code or a property bailment contract as regulated in Article 559 of the Civil Code, the law does not mandate that such contracts must be in writing. Therefore, regarding the form, the fact that the two parties entered into an oral agreement does not violate the regulations on the form of a contract. Since the transaction between Mr. T and Mrs. D was not documented with evidence but only through oral form, it is necessary to rely on other evidence to determine the objective truth of the case.
[2] Although Mr. T did not admit the plaintiffs’ statements, the case resolution process determined that after the lottery winning event occurred, Mr. T unilaterally ordered the replacement and relocation of the security cameras that observed daily activities at the workshop; simultaneously, Mr. T did not personally claim the prize but assigned another person to do so, and subsequently provided contradictory testimony regarding the location where the prize was claimed. When the workers went on Lunar New Year break, Mr. T gave them bonuses ranging from 5,000,000 VND to 20,000,000 VND each, while the plaintiffs all affirmed that in previous years, Mr. T only gave each worker about one week’s worth of wages as a Tet bonus. At the first-instance trial on January 21, 2022, the plaintiffs requested Mr. T to pay each plaintiff an additional 50,000,000 VND, but Mr. T only agreed to pay the plaintiffs a total of 200,000,000 VND. Mr. T could not explain his reasons for replacing and changing the position of the cameras, the reason he had someone else claim the prize, or why he and his representative gave contradictory statements about the prize-claiming location. This proves that Mr. T wanted to conceal the winning of the lottery ticket he gave Mrs. D on January 7, 2022. Besides, the fact that Mr. T gave the workers significantly higher 2022 Tet bonuses than in previous years, and at the first-instance trial on January 21, 2022, he also agreed to give the plaintiffs an additional 200,000,000 VND, is abnormal. Therefore, the first-instance and appellate courts’ assessment that Mr. T had collectively given Mrs. D and the workers at his workshop on January 7, 2022, the lottery ticket, while setting the condition that if it won, the prize would be shared equally among all workers present, is well-founded.
[3] As assessed in paragraph [1], since the transaction between Mr. T and Mrs. D was only concluded orally, the cassation protest’s assessment that the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence is inconsistent with reality. Furthermore, there is no evidence to support the protest’s claim that 11 out of 18 plaintiffs did not witness Mr. T giving the ticket to Mrs. D but only acted on Mrs. D’s provocation to demand benefits. The plaintiffs all determined that because Mr. T promised to share the prize during the Tet break, they agreed to wait, and in fact, by the 28th of the Lunar New Year, Mr. T had distributed a portion of the money (more than a month after Mr. T claimed the prize); after the Tet holiday, the plaintiffs demanded more money but Mr. T refused, so the fact that the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit more than two months after the ticket won is not an abnormality as suggested by the cassation protest.
[4] At the time Mr. T gave Mrs. D and the workers the lottery ticket, the face value of the ticket was only 10,000 VND, which is insignificant compared to daily consumption costs; thus, Mr. T could unilaterally dispose of it without needing the consent of Mrs. Nguyen Thi Thuy D1 (his wife), as it does not fall under any of the cases regulated in Article 35 of the Law on Marriage and Family 2014. The cassation protest’s argument that Mr. T only had the right to dispose of 50% of the value of the winning ticket incorrectly identified the subject matter of the contract. In this case, the subject matter of the property gift contract between Mr. T and the plaintiffs must be identified as the unopened lottery ticket, not the winning prize. When the ticket won, if Mrs. D were still the holder, she would have the obligation to claim the prize and share it equally among the plaintiffs according to the conditions agreed upon with Mr. T. However, since Mr. T took the ticket back and claimed the prize himself, he must be responsible for returning the prize money from that ticket to the plaintiffs, as the appellate court correctly decided.
For these reasons,
DECISION:
Pursuant to Article 325; Article 334; Article 337 and Article 343 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015;
1. To reject Cassation Protest Decision No. 125/QDKNGĐT-VKS-DS dated May 25, 2023, of the Chief Procurator of the High People’s Procuracy in Ho Chi Minh City.
To uphold Civil Appellate Judgment No. 10/2023/DS-PT dated January 13, 2023, of the People’s Court of Vinh Long Province regarding the case “Dispute over a property gift contract” between the plaintiffs, Mr./Mrs. Nguyen Thi Thu D, Nguyen Thanh X, Nguyen Thi Kim L, Huynh Thi Thu V, Huynh Thi Bich T1, Pham Thu H, Trinh Thị L1, Pham Thị Hong T2, Vo Van C, Truong Van Muoi H3, Banh Thanh T3, Huynh Lâm T4, Ho Công A H4, Vo Van L2, Cao Minh Đ, Nguyen Thi Kieu T5, Ho Quoc S, Tran Van T7 and the defendant, Mr. Tran Thanh T, and the persons with related rights and obligations, Mrs. Nguyen Thi Thuy D, Mr. Truong Tran Hoai T6, Mr. Le Van T2, Mr. Huynh Tan Chi Thanh H1, and Mr. Tong Phuoc H2.
2. The cassation decision takes legal effect from the date of issuance.
CONTENT OF THE PRECEDENT
“[4] At the time Mr. T gave Mrs. D and the workers the lottery ticket, the face value of the ticket was only 10,000 VND, which is insignificant compared to daily consumption costs; thus, Mr. T could unilaterally dispose of it without needing the consent of Mrs. Nguyen Thi Thuy D1 (his wife), as it does not fall under any of the cases regulated in Article 35 of the Law on Marriage and Family 2014. The cassation protest’s argument that Mr. T only had the right to dispose of 50% of the value of the winning ticket incorrectly identified the subject matter of the contract. In this case, the subject matter of the property gift contract between Mr. T and the plaintiffs must be identified as the unopened lottery ticket, not the winning prize. When the ticket won, if Mrs. D were still the holder, she would have the obligation to claim the prize and share it equally among the plaintiffs according to the conditions agreed upon with Mr. T. However, since Mr. T took the ticket back and claimed the prize himself, he must be responsible for returning the prize money from that ticket to the plaintiffs, as the appellate court correctly decided.”
