trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nayPrecedent no. 02/2016/AL on dispute over property reclaim

In a case when an overseas Vietnamese who, at his/her cost and expense, acquired transfer of land use right and asked a Vietnamese citizen to put trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land use right in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay name of that person on his/her behalf is involved in a dispute with such Vietnamese citizen, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Court should have considered that Vietnamese citizen’s contribution to preservation and restoration to increase trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay value of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land use right; where it is impossible to determine specific contribution, it is supposed to consider that trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay overseas Vietnamese and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Vietnamese citizen have equal contribution to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay increased value of land use right in comparison with its initial value.

Representation of Mrs. Nguyen Thi Thanh in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay lawsuit petition dated January 24, 2005, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay testimony dated February 7, 2005 and during trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay lawsuit settlement process:

Mrs. Thanh who is an overseas Vietnamese in Netherland visited relatives in Vietnam with trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay intent to acquire land use right. On August 10, 1993, she received transfer of land use right of 7,595.7 m2 of agricultural land from trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay spouses Mr. Heng Tinh, Mrs. Ly Thi Sa Queng in ward 7, Soc Trang town for 21.99 maces of gold. She was trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay person who directly negotiated and engaged in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay transfer and paid gold to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay couple. Her purpose was to entrusting trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land plot to her full brother Mr. Nguyen Van Tam and Mrs. Nguyen Thi Chinh Em for cultivation to take care of their parents.  Because she is an overseas Vietnamese, she had all transfer paperwork in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Mr. Tam's name. Furthermore, she presented “Certificate of agricultural land transfer” dated August 10, 1993, certified by People's Committee of An Hiep commune. After trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay transfer completed, she let trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay spouses Mr. Tam to cultivate trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land, but in 2004, Mr. Tam transferred trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay abovementioned 7,595.7m2 area, without her consent, to Minh Chau Co., Ltd for VND 1,260,000,000.

As for that reason, she asked Mr. Tam to reimburse trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay proceeds from trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay transfer of her land use right.

Representation of defendant Mr. Nguyen Van Tam:

trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay 7,595.7 m2 land in dispute was paid by him and his wife through trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay transfer transaction between them and Mr. Heng Tinh and his spouse, his name is in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay "Agreement on agricultural land transfer” made on August 10, 1993. This certificate does not bear certification of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay local government. After that, he and Mr. Henh Tinh and Mrs. Yem also entered into an agreement and made an application for land use right transfer on August 11, 1993, these documents bear approval of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay People’s Committee of An Hiep commune and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay People’s Committee of My Tu district for such transfer. After trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay transfer, he registered trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land use right certificate on May 28, 1994, so he acquired land use right. Then, in 2004, he transferred trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay abovementioned land to Minh Chau Co., Ltd for VND 1,260,000,000. He claimed that trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay “Agreement on agricultural land transfer” made on August 10, 1993, bearing certificate of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay People’s Committee of An Hiep commune presented by Mrs. Thanh is fake. Because trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Expertise Conclusion No. 2784/C21 (P7) dated October 25, 2005 of Institute of Criminal Science affiliated to General Police Department defines that his signature in that Agreement was forged. Therefore, he contest trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay lawsuit petition made by Mrs. Thanh.

Representation of person with relevant rights and obligations Mrs. Nguyen Thi Yem (Mr. Tam’s wife): In 1993, she and her husband transferred trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land of Mr. Heng Tinh. She was absent from trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay transfer process but she gave money and gold to Mr. Tam to pay for Mr. Henh Tin and Mrs. Yem, so she contests trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay petition of Mrs. Thanh.

Mr. Henh Tin and Mrs. Yem, Mrs. Ly Thi Sa Quenh (also known as Ly Thi Sa Venh) who transferred trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land all asserted that Mrs. Thanh was trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay person who directly negotiated and engaged in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay transfer, and paid 21.99 maces of gold in person to him and his wife. Mrs. Thanh had trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Agreement dated August 10, 1993 in Mr. Tam’s name; their signatures in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Agreement presented by Mrs. Thanh are genuine.

At trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay first instance civil judgment No. 04/2006/DS-ST dated April 28, 2006, People’s Court of Soc Trang province judged:

Accept a part of Mrs. Nguyen Thi Thanh's petition for reclaiming trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay sum of land transfer.

Compel Mr. Nguyen Van Tam and Mrs. Nguyen Thi Yem to reimburse VND 630,000,000 to Mrs. Nguyen Thi Thanh.

In addition, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay first instance court decided trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay court fee and expertising fee, and announced trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay appeal right to litigants as per trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay law.

On May 10, 2006, Mr. Nguyen Van Tam filed an appeal, claiming that Mr. Thanh did not have trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay right to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land that he transferred to Minh Chau Co., Ltd, so trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay judgment made by trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay first instance forcing him to reimburse VND 630,000,000 to Mrs. Thanh was wrong.

On May 12, 2006, Mr. Nguyen Huu Phong (on behalf of Mrs. Thanh) filed an appeal, requesting trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay appellate court to compel Mr. Tam to reimburse trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay transfer amount of VND 1,260,000,000 to Mrs. Thanh.

At trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay appellate civil judgment No. 334/2006/DSPT dated August 25, 2006, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Appellate Court of People’s Supreme Court in Ho Chi Minh City judged: quash trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay appeal of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay plaintiff and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay defendant, and modify trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay first instance judgment as follows:

Accept a part of Mrs. Nguyen Thi Thanh's petition for reclaiming trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay sum of land transfer.

Compel Mr. Nguyen Van Tam and Mrs. Nguyen Thi Yem to reimburse VND 27,047,700 to Mrs. Nguyen Thi Thanh, equivalent to 21.99 maces of 24k gold.

Compel Mr. Nguyen Van Tam and Mrs. Nguyen Thi Yem to reimburse VND 1,232,266,860 to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay public fund of state.

In addition, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay appellate court decided trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay court fee.

After appellate trial, Mr. Nguyen Van Tam kept claiming trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay above appellate civil judgment.

At trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Decision No. 449/2009/KN-DS dated August 21, 2009, Chief Justice of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Supreme People’s Court appealed trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay appellate civil judgment No. 334/2006/DSPT dated August 25, 2006 of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Appellate Court of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Supreme People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City, requesting trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Council of Judges of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Supreme People’s Court to hear trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay case under cassation procedure, quashing trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay above appellate judgment and quashing trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay first instance judgment No. 04/2006/DSST dated April 28, 2006 of People’s Court of Soc Trang province; referring trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay case file to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay People’s Court of Soc Trang province for first instance re-trial as per trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay law, with trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay following judgment:

“Mrs. Nguyen Thi Thanh sued Mr. Nguyen Van Tam for reclaiming her property, claiming that she is an overseas Vietnamese so she asked Mr. Tam (her brother) to receive transfer of land of Mr. Henh Tin and Mrs. Yem in his name on behalf of herself, but then Mr. Tam transferred that land plot to a third party.

trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay first instance court and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay appellate court judged that Mr. Tam only had his name on trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land transfer paperwork on behalf of Mr. Thanh and it was deemed well-grounded.

Because Mrs. Thanh is an overseas Vietnamese, she will not be allocated trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land plot, she only receives back trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay amount of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay transfer value.

With regard to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land value difference, during trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay first-instance trial and appellate trial trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Civil Code 2005 was being in force and there was no regulation stipulating that such a difference must be transferred to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay public fund of state; therefore both Mrs. Thanh and Mr. Tam will receive this difference. trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay first instance court had valid ground not to compel Mr. Tam to reimburse trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land value difference to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay public fund, but it was wrong when not compelling Mr. Tam to reimburse trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay initial transfer value to Mrs. Thanh. trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay appellate court was wrong when compelling Mr. Tam to reimburse trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay difference of VND 1,232,226,860 to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay public fund of state without citing any legal basis".

At trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay cassation trial, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay representative of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay People’s Supreme Procuracy requested trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Council of Judges of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Supreme People’s Court to accept trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay appeal made by trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Chief Justice of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Supreme People’s Court, quash trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay above appellate judgment and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay first instance judgment No. 04/2006/DSST dated April 28, 2006 of People’s Court of Soc Trang province; refer trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay case file to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay People’s Court of Soc Trang province for first instance re-trial as per trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay law.

Mrs. Nguyen Thi Thanh sued Mr. Nguyen Van Tam for reclaiming VND 1,260,000,000, claiming that she was trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay person who directly engaged in and paid money for trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay transfer of 7.595,7m2 land of Mr. Henh Tin and Mrs. Yem. Although she asked Mr. Tam (her brother) to have his name on trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay transfer paperwork because she is an overseas Vietnamese, Mr. Tam intentionally transferred trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay above land plot to Minh Chau Co., Ltd for VND 1,260,000,000 without her consent.

Mr. Tam stated that trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay reason trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land transfer paperwork was in his name was simply that he directly engaged in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay transfer and paid money to Mr. Heng Tinh. After trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay transfer, he directly cultivated trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land and registered trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land use right certificate. And then when his transfer of land to Minh Chau Co., Ltd was also permitted by trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay authority, so he contests trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay petition of Mrs. Thanh.

However, during settlement of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay case, Mr. Tam and Mrs. Yem had many contradictory statements about trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay money and gold paid to Mr. Heng Tinh and Mr. Tam failed to demonstrate trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay origin of that gold.

On trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay other hand, Mr. Tinh and Mrs. Quenh asserted that they only reached an agreement on land transfer with and received gold from Mrs. Thanh, and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land transfer paper in Mr. Tam's name was made at trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay request of Mrs. Thanh because she was living abroad.

Based on testimonies of Mrs. Thai Thi Ba, Mr. Nguyen Phuoc Hoang, Mrs. Nguyen Thi Chinh Em (mother and full brother and sister of Mrs. Thanh and Mr. Tam), they confirmed that Mrs. Thanh engaged in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay transfer and paid money to Mr. Tinh and his wife, Mr. Tam only had his name on trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land transfer paper.

According to all items of evidence, it is well-grounded to declare that trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay first instance court and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay appellate court were right when determining that Mrs. Thanh paid 21.99 maces of gold for trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land transfer and Mr. Tam only had his name on trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay transfer paper. Because Mr. Tam transferred trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land plot to Minh Chau Co., Ltd and Mrs. Thanh only requested Mr. Tam to reimburse trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay transfer value of VND 1,260,000,000, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay acceptance of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay first instance court and appellate court to hear trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay case was in compliant with trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay law.

Although Mrs. Thanh paid 21.99 maces of gold for trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land transfer (equivalent to VND 27,047,700), trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land transfer paper was in Mr. Tam's name and then Mr. Tam managed that land plot and transferred it to a third party thereafter. Accordingly, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay court was supposed to determine that Mr. Tam made efforts to preserve and enrich trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land value, so trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay above sum of money (after deducting trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay initial amount of 21.99 maces of gold of Mrs. Thanh) is trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay common profit between Mrs. Thanh and Mr. Tam. Furthermore, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay court was supposed to determine Mr. Tam’s proportion in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay common earning based on his efforts to ensure trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay compliance with law and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay interests of litigants (If it is unable to determine trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay correct proportion, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay common earning should be equally divided).

trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay first instance court was wrong when recognizing that Mrs. Thanh and Mr. Tam each have trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay right to own half of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay money but failing to returning Mrs. trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay sum equivalent to 21.99 maces of gold.

trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay appellate court went against trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Civil Code 2005 and failed to ensure trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay interests of litigants when solely recognizing that Mrs. Thanh has trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay right to own trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay sum equivalent to 21,99 maces of gold but expropriating trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay remaining sum to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay public fund of state.

In addition, while Mrs. Thanh sued Mr. Tam for reclaiming VND 1,260,000,000 which is trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay sum of money Mr. Tam transferred trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay 7.595,7m2 land without dispute over land use right, Mr. Tam claimed that that sum of money belongs to him. Accordingly, litigants disputed trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay property ownership which is trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay above sum of money. However, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay first instance court and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay appellate court determining that trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay legal relation here was “dispute over reclaiming property” was wrong.

According to facts and matters, pursuant to Clause 3 Article 297 and Article 299 of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Civil Procedure Code;

”Although Mrs. Thanh paid 21.99 maces of gold for trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land transfer (equivalent to VND 27,047,700), trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land transfer paper was in Mr. Tam's name and then Mr. Tam managed that land plot and transferred it to a third party thereafter. Accordingly, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay court was supposed to determine that Mr. Tam made efforts to preserve and enrich trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land value, so trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay above sum of money (after deducting trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay initial amount of 21.99 maces of gold of Mrs. Thanh) is trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay common profit between Mrs. Thanh and Mr. Tam. Furthermore, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay court was supposed to determine Mr. Tam’s proportion in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay common earning based on his efforts to ensure trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay compliance with law and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay interests of litigants (If it is unable to determine trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay correct proportion, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay common earning should be equally divided).”

1- Overrule trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay appellate civil judgment No. 334/2006/DSPT dated August 25, 2006 of Appellate Court of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Supreme People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay first instance civil judgment No. 04/2006/DSST dated April 28, 2006 of People’s Court of Soc Trang province regarding trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay dispute over reclaiming property between trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay plaintiff Mrs. Nguyen Thi Thanh and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay defendant Mr. Nguyen Van Tam; person with relevant rights and obligations Mrs. Nguyen Thi Yem.

2- Refer trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay case file to People’s Court of Soc Trang Province for re-conducting trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay first-instance trial as per trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay law.