bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếpCassation decision No. 27/2010/DS-GDT dated July 8, 2010 on land use right dispute between Mrs. nguyen thi thanh and Mr. nguyen van tam

bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp SUPREME PEOPLE’S COURT

CASSATION DECISION NO. 27/2010/DS-GDT DATED JULY 8, 2010 ON LAND USE RIGHT DISPUTE BETWEEN MRS. NGUYEN THI THANH AND MR. NGUYEN VAN TAM

On July 8, 2010, bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp cassation trial was conducted at bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp office of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Supreme People’s Court to hear bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp civil case of land use right dispute between:

Plaintiff:Mrs. Nguyen Thi Thanh, born in 1949; address: Abeelstrât 3, 2691 DG’S Graveande, Netherlands.

Authorized representative of Mrs. Thanh: Mr. Nguyen Huu Phong, born in 1943; address: 2 Ngo Van So, Can Tho city.

Defendant:Mr. Nguyen Van Tam, born in 1955; address: 7, alley 4/5, Highway 1A, cluster 5, ward 2, Soc Trang town, Soc Trang province.

Persons with relevant rights and obligations:

Mrs. Nguyen Thi Yem, born in 1956, Mr. Tam’s wife, residing at bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp same address with Mr. Tam.

DEEMING THAT

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

Mrs. Thanh who is an overseas Vietnamese in Netherland visited relatives in Vietnam with bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp intent to acquire land use right. On August 10, 1993, she received transfer of land use right of 7,595.7 m²of agricultural land from bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp spouses Mr. Heng Tinh, Mrs. Ly Thi Sa Queng in ward 7, Soc Trang town for 21.99 maces of gold. She was bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp person who directly negotiated and engaged in bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp transfer and paid gold to bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp couple. Her purpose was to entrusting bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp 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 bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp land transfer paper in bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Mr. Tam's name. Furthermore, she presented “Agreement on agricultural land transfer” dated August 10, 1993, certified by People's Committee of An Hiep commune. After bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp transfer completed, she let bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp spouses Mr. Tam to cultivate bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp land, but in 2004, Mr. Tam transferred bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp abovementioned 7,595.7m²area, without her consent, to Minh Chau Co., Ltd for VND 1,260,000,000. As for that reason, she asked Mr. Tam to reimburse bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp proceeds from bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp transfer of her land use right.

Representation of defendant Mr. Nguyen Van Tam:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Decision No. 449/2009/KN-DS dated August 21, 2009, Chief Justice of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Supreme People’s Court appealed bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp appellate civil judgment No. 334/2006/DSPT dated August 25, 2006 of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Appellate Court of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Supreme People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City, requesting bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Council of Judges of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Supreme People’s Court to hear bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp case under cassation procedure, quashing bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp above appellate judgment and quashing bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp first instance judgment No. 04/2006/DSST dated April 28, 2006 of People’s Court of Soc Trang province; referring bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp case file to bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp People’s Court of Soc Trang province for first instance re-trial as per bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp law, with bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp 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. Heng Tin and Mrs. Yem in his name on behalf of herself, but then Mr. Tam transferred that land plot to a third party.

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

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

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

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

DEEMING THAT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp appellate court went againstbóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Civil Code 2005and failed to ensure bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp interests of litigants when solely recognizing that Mrs. Thanh has bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp right to own bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp sum equivalent to 21.999 maces of gold but expropriating bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp remaining sum to bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp public fund of state.

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

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

HEREBY DECIDES

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