xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2Precedent 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 xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 land use right in xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 name of that person on his/her behalf is involved in a dispute with such Vietnamese citizen, xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 Court should have considered that Vietnamese citizen’s contribution to preservation and restoration to increase xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 value of xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 land use right; where it is impossible to determine specific contribution, it is supposed to consider that xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 overseas Vietnamese and xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 Vietnamese citizen have equal contribution to xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 increased value of land use right in comparison with its initial value.

Representation of Mrs. Nguyen Thi Thanh in xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 lawsuit petition dated January 24, 2005, xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 testimony dated February 7, 2005 and during xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 lawsuit settlement process:

Mrs. Thanh who is an overseas Vietnamese in Netherland visited relatives in Vietnam with xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 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 xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 spouses Mr. Heng Tinh, Mrs. Ly Thi Sa Queng in ward 7, Soc Trang town for 21.99 maces of gold. She was xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 person who directly negotiated and engaged in xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 transfer and paid gold to xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 couple. Her purpose was to entrusting xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 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 xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 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 xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 transfer completed, she let xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 spouses Mr. Tam to cultivate xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 land, but in 2004, Mr. Tam transferred xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 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 xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 proceeds from xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 transfer of her land use right.

Representation of defendant Mr. Nguyen Van Tam:

xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 7,595.7 m2 land in dispute was paid by him and his wife through xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 transfer transaction between them and Mr. Heng Tinh and his spouse, his name is in xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 "Agreement on agricultural land transfer” made on August 10, 1993. This certificate does not bear certification of xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 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 xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 People’s Committee of An Hiep commune and xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 People’s Committee of My Tu district for such transfer. After xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 transfer, he registered xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 land use right certificate on May 28, 1994, so he acquired land use right. Then, in 2004, he transferred xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 abovementioned land to Minh Chau Co., Ltd for VND 1,260,000,000. He claimed that xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 “Agreement on agricultural land transfer” made on August 10, 1993, bearing certificate of xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 People’s Committee of An Hiep commune presented by Mrs. Thanh is fake. Because xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 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 xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 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 xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 land of Mr. Heng Tinh. She was absent from xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 transfer process but she gave money and gold to Mr. Tam to pay for Mr. Henh Tin and Mrs. Yem, so she contests xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 petition of Mrs. Thanh.

Mr. Henh Tin and Mrs. Yem, Mrs. Ly Thi Sa Quenh (also known as Ly Thi Sa Venh) who transferred xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 land all asserted that Mrs. Thanh was xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 person who directly negotiated and engaged in xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 transfer, and paid 21.99 maces of gold in person to him and his wife. Mrs. Thanh had xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 Agreement dated August 10, 1993 in Mr. Tam’s name; their signatures in xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 Agreement presented by Mrs. Thanh are genuine.

At xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 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 xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 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, xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 first instance court decided xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 court fee and expertising fee, and announced xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 appeal right to litigants as per xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 law.

On May 10, 2006, Mr. Nguyen Van Tam filed an appeal, claiming that Mr. Thanh did not have xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 right to xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 land that he transferred to Minh Chau Co., Ltd, so xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 judgment made by xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 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 xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 appellate court to compel Mr. Tam to reimburse xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 transfer amount of VND 1,260,000,000 to Mrs. Thanh.

At xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 appellate civil judgment No. 334/2006/DSPT dated August 25, 2006, xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 Appellate Court of People’s Supreme Court in Ho Chi Minh City judged: quash xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 appeal of xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 plaintiff and xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 defendant, and modify xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 first instance judgment as follows:

Accept a part of Mrs. Nguyen Thi Thanh's petition for reclaiming xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 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 xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 public fund of state.

In addition, xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 appellate court decided xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 court fee.

After appellate trial, Mr. Nguyen Van Tam kept claiming xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 above appellate civil judgment.

At xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 Decision No. 449/2009/KN-DS dated August 21, 2009, Chief Justice of xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 Supreme People’s Court appealed xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 appellate civil judgment No. 334/2006/DSPT dated August 25, 2006 of xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 Appellate Court of xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 Supreme People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City, requesting xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 Council of Judges of xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 Supreme People’s Court to hear xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 case under cassation procedure, quashing xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 above appellate judgment and quashing xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 first instance judgment No. 04/2006/DSST dated April 28, 2006 of People’s Court of Soc Trang province; referring xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 case file to xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 People’s Court of Soc Trang province for first instance re-trial as per xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 law, with xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 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.

xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 first instance court and xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 appellate court judged that Mr. Tam only had his name on xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 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 xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 land plot, she only receives back xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 amount of xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 transfer value.

With regard to xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 land value difference, during xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 first-instance trial and appellate trial xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 Civil Code 2005 was being in force and there was no regulation stipulating that such a difference must be transferred to xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 public fund of state; therefore both Mrs. Thanh and Mr. Tam will receive this difference. xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 first instance court had valid ground not to compel Mr. Tam to reimburse xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 land value difference to xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 public fund, but it was wrong when not compelling Mr. Tam to reimburse xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 initial transfer value to Mrs. Thanh. xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 appellate court was wrong when compelling Mr. Tam to reimburse xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 difference of VND 1,232,226,860 to xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 public fund of state without citing any legal basis".

At xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 cassation trial, xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 representative of xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 People’s Supreme Procuracy requested xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 Council of Judges of xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 Supreme People’s Court to accept xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 appeal made by xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 Chief Justice of xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 Supreme People’s Court, quash xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 above appellate judgment and xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 first instance judgment No. 04/2006/DSST dated April 28, 2006 of People’s Court of Soc Trang province; refer xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 case file to xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 People’s Court of Soc Trang province for first instance re-trial as per xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 law.

Mrs. Nguyen Thi Thanh sued Mr. Nguyen Van Tam for reclaiming VND 1,260,000,000, claiming that she was xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 person who directly engaged in and paid money for xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 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 xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 transfer paperwork because she is an overseas Vietnamese, Mr. Tam intentionally transferred xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 above land plot to Minh Chau Co., Ltd for VND 1,260,000,000 without her consent.

Mr. Tam stated that xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 reason xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 land transfer paperwork was in his name was simply that he directly engaged in xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 transfer and paid money to Mr. Heng Tinh. After xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 transfer, he directly cultivated xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 land and registered xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 land use right certificate. And then when his transfer of land to Minh Chau Co., Ltd was also permitted by xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 authority, so he contests xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 petition of Mrs. Thanh.

However, during settlement of xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 case, Mr. Tam and Mrs. Yem had many contradictory statements about xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 money and gold paid to Mr. Heng Tinh and Mr. Tam failed to demonstrate xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 origin of that gold.

On xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 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 xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 land transfer paper in Mr. Tam's name was made at xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 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 xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 transfer and paid money to Mr. Tinh and his wife, Mr. Tam only had his name on xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 land transfer paper.

According to all items of evidence, it is well-grounded to declare that xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 first instance court and xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 appellate court were right when determining that Mrs. Thanh paid 21.99 maces of gold for xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 land transfer and Mr. Tam only had his name on xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 transfer paper. Because Mr. Tam transferred xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 land plot to Minh Chau Co., Ltd and Mrs. Thanh only requested Mr. Tam to reimburse xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 transfer value of VND 1,260,000,000, xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 acceptance of xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 first instance court and appellate court to hear xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 case was in compliant with xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 law.

Although Mrs. Thanh paid 21.99 maces of gold for xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 land transfer (equivalent to VND 27,047,700), xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 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, xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 court was supposed to determine that Mr. Tam made efforts to preserve and enrich xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 land value, so xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 above sum of money (after deducting xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 initial amount of 21.99 maces of gold of Mrs. Thanh) is xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 common profit between Mrs. Thanh and Mr. Tam. Furthermore, xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 court was supposed to determine Mr. Tam’s proportion in xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 common earning based on his efforts to ensure xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 compliance with law and xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 interests of litigants (If it is unable to determine xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 correct proportion, xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 common earning should be equally divided).

xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 first instance court was wrong when recognizing that Mrs. Thanh and Mr. Tam each have xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 right to own half of xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 money but failing to returning Mrs. xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 sum equivalent to 21.99 maces of gold.

xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 appellate court went against xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 Civil Code 2005 and failed to ensure xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 interests of litigants when solely recognizing that Mrs. Thanh has xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 right to own xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 sum equivalent to 21,99 maces of gold but expropriating xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 remaining sum to xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 public fund of state.

In addition, while Mrs. Thanh sued Mr. Tam for reclaiming VND 1,260,000,000 which is xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 sum of money Mr. Tam transferred xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 7.595,7m2 land without dispute over land use right, Mr. Tam claimed that that sum of money belongs to him. Accordingly, litigants disputed xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 property ownership which is xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 above sum of money. However, xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 first instance court and xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 appellate court determining that xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 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 xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 Civil Procedure Code;

”Although Mrs. Thanh paid 21.99 maces of gold for xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 land transfer (equivalent to VND 27,047,700), xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 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, xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 court was supposed to determine that Mr. Tam made efforts to preserve and enrich xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 land value, so xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 above sum of money (after deducting xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 initial amount of 21.99 maces of gold of Mrs. Thanh) is xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 common profit between Mrs. Thanh and Mr. Tam. Furthermore, xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 court was supposed to determine Mr. Tam’s proportion in xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 common earning based on his efforts to ensure xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 compliance with law and xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 interests of litigants (If it is unable to determine xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 correct proportion, xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 common earning should be equally divided).”

1- Overrule xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 appellate civil judgment No. 334/2006/DSPT dated August 25, 2006 of Appellate Court of xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 Supreme People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City and xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 first instance civil judgment No. 04/2006/DSST dated April 28, 2006 of People’s Court of Soc Trang province regarding xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 dispute over reclaiming property between xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 plaintiff Mrs. Nguyen Thi Thanh and xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 defendant Mr. Nguyen Van Tam; person with relevant rights and obligations Mrs. Nguyen Thi Yem.

2- Refer xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 case file to People’s Court of Soc Trang Province for re-conducting xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 first-instance trial as per xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 law.