đá bóng trực tiếpJudgment no. 709/2020/DS-PT dated july 28, 2020 on petition for declaring a notarized document

đá bóng trực tiếp PEOPLE’S COURT OF HO CHI MINH CITY

JUDGMENT NO. 709/2020/DS-PT DATED JULY 28, 2020 ON PETITION FOR DECLARING A NOTARIZED DOCUMENT NULL AND VOID

On July 22 and 28, 2020, at đá bóng trực tiếp courthouse of đá bóng trực tiếp People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City: No. 131, Nam Ky Khoi Nghia street, Ben Thanh ward, District 1, Ho Chi Minh city, an appellate trial was conducted to hear đá bóng trực tiếp case No. 230/2020/TLPT-DS dated February 24, 2020 on Petition for declaring a notarized document null and void”.

As đá bóng trực tiếp first instance civil judgment No. 619/2019/DS-ST dated December 31, 2019 and Decision on modification to đá bóng trực tiếp first instance judgment No. 02/2020/QD-SCBSBA dated January 10, 2020 of đá bóng trực tiếp People’s Court of District 10, Ho Chi Minh City was appealed.

According to đá bóng trực tiếp Decision to Bring đá bóng trực tiếp Case to Appellate Trial No. 3280/2020/QD-PT dated June 30, 2020, between đá bóng trực tiếp following litigants:

1. Plaintiff: Mrs. A, born in 1931 - died on August 01, 2019. đá bóng trực tiếp heirs of rights and duties of litigation of Mrs. A:

1.1. Mrs. B, born in 1955, Address: No. 69, street D1, Paris.

1.2. Mr. C, born in 1959;

Address: No. 34/17, Street D2, Ward 1, District 1, Ho Chi Minh City.

Ms. B and Mr. C authorized Mr. D, born in 1960 to act as their representative (Appearance in court). Address: No.45/25/10G, Street D3, Ward 2, District 2, Ho Chi Minh City. (Letter of Authorization dated August 24, 2019).

1.3. Mr. E, born in 1961 (Appearance in court);

Address: No.22, Street D4, Ward 3, District 3, Ho Chi Minh City.

1.4. Mr. G, born in 1963;

Address: No.649/58/64, Street D5, Ward 4, District 4, Ho Chi Minh City.

Represented by Ms. H, born in 1979 (Appearance in court).

Address: No.108, Street D6, Ward 5, District 5, Ho Chi Minh City. (Letter of Authorization dated November 16, 2019).

2. Defendant: Public Notary Office I, Ho Chi Minh City.

Address: No.25/5, Street D7, Ward 6, District 6, Ho Chi Minh City. Represented by Mr. K, born in 1978 (Appearance in court).

(Letter of Authorization No. 341/UQ-CC4 dated November 07, 2019)

3. Persons with relevant rights and duties:

3.1. Mrs. L, born in 1963;

Address: No.7A/5/21, Street D8, Ward 7, District 7, Ho Chi Minh City.

Represented by Ms. M, born in 1989 and Mr. N1, born in 1995 (Appearance in court).

Co-address: No. 802, Floor 8, Building N2, No. 72 – 74, Street D9, Ward 8, District 8, Ho Chi Minh City.

Defender of Mrs. L – Mr./Ms. O – Lawyer of Ho Chi Minh City Bar Association.

3.2. Ms. S, born in 1999 (with Request for Trial in Absentia);

3.3. Mr. T, born in 1999 (with Request for Trial in Absentia);

3.4. Mr. U, born in 1997 (No appearance in court);

3.5. Mr. V, born in 2001 (Appearance in court)

3.6. Ms. X, born in 1951 (with Request for Trial in Absentia).

Co-address: No.7A/5/21, Street D8, Ward 7, District 7, Ho Chi Minh City.

4. Witnesses:

4.1. Mr. Y1, born in 1954 (No appearance in court);

Address: No.12, Street D10, Ward 9, District 9, Ho Chi Minh City.

4.2. Mr. Y2, born in 1957 (Appearance in court);

Address: No.7A/26, Street D8, Ward 7, District 7, Ho Chi Minh City. 4.3. Mr. Y3, born in 1977 (No appearance in court).

Address: No.7B/4/7, Street D8, Ward 7, District 7, Ho Chi Minh City.

5. Appellants: Mr. C, Mr. E and Mr. G are đá bóng trực tiếp heirs of rights and duties of litigation of Mrs A – Plaintiff.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

According to đá bóng trực tiếp civil first instance judgment, đá bóng trực tiếp contents of đá bóng trực tiếp case are summarized as follows:

According to đá bóng trực tiếp petition dated March 15, 2018 and đá bóng trực tiếp supplemental petition dated April 16, 2018 of Mrs A (died on August 1, 2019) and đá bóng trực tiếp heirs of litigation rights and obligations of đá bóng trực tiếp plaintiff, Mrs A, including Mrs B, Mr. C, Mr. E and Mr. G:

đá bóng trực tiếp house No. 7A/5/21, Street D8, Quarter 7, District 7, Ho Chi Minh City belonged to Mrs A and Mr. N3 according to đá bóng trực tiếp certificate of housing ownership and land use right, with đá bóng trực tiếp original register No. 14620/2000 granted by People’s Committee of Ho Chi Minh City on November 28, 2000. Because of being over 70 years old, Mrs. A and Mr. N3 wished to lease out that house to earn money for living. In order to facilitate đá bóng trực tiếp lease, Mrs. A authorized Mr. N3 to enter into lease contracts with lessees on her behalf. On July 14, 2005, Mrs. A and Mr. N3 came to Public Notary Office I, Ho Chi Minh City in order for Mrs. A to authorize Mr. N3 who to take full enjoyment of that house. When Mrs. A came to đá bóng trực tiếp Public Notary Office I, Ho Chi Minh City with Mrs. L, her daughter-in-law, đá bóng trực tiếp authorization agreement to use đá bóng trực tiếp house No. 7A/5/21 somehow became a gift deed of đá bóng trực tiếp partial house 7A/5/21 D8 Street to Mr. N3 according to đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed No. 028386/HD-TCN dated September 7, 2005. This gift deed was made against Mrs. A’s will. On January 15, 2018, Mrs. A would like to extract a copy of đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed No. 028386/HD-TCN dated September 7, 2005 at đá bóng trực tiếp Public Notary Office I, Ho Chi Minh City, and on March 8, 2018, Mrs. A filed a lawsuit, requesting to declare that đá bóng trực tiếp notarized gift deed of đá bóng trực tiếp house No. 028386/HD-TCN between Mrs. A and Mr. N3 null and void.

During settlement of this case, Mrs. A found that Mr. N3 gave đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed of đá bóng trực tiếp full house No. 7A/5/21 street D8 to Mrs. L (her daughter-in-law) according to đá bóng trực tiếp contract No. 14077/HD-TCN dated April 17, 2007 certified by đá bóng trực tiếp Public Notary Office I, Ho Chi Minh City. Mrs. A realized that this was an unusual and unethical act, so on April 16, 2018 Mrs. A filed a supplemental lawsuit requesting to declare đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed of đá bóng trực tiếp house No. 14077/HD-TCN on April 17, 2007 between Mr. N3 and Mrs. L null and void, because đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed of đá bóng trực tiếp house No. 028386 is a result of đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed of đá bóng trực tiếp house No. 14077.

On August 1, 2019, Mrs. A died, đá bóng trực tiếp successors to Mrs. A's litigation rights and obligations, Ms. B, Mr. C, Mr. E and Mr. G, still maintain Mrs. A’s lawsuit and supplemental lawsuit to declare that đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed of đá bóng trực tiếp house No. 028386 and đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed of đá bóng trực tiếp house No. 14077 null and void, because it did not make sense that Mr. N3 (just a father-in-law) gave his daughter-in-law, Mrs. L, a great fortune, đá bóng trực tiếp house 7A. /5/21 D8, in addition:

Firstly, đá bóng trực tiếp notarized gift deed of đá bóng trực tiếp house No. 028386/HD-TCN between Mrs. A and Mr. N3 dated September 7, 2005 was against Mrs. A's will.

Secondly, upon signing of đá bóng trực tiếp notarized gift deed of đá bóng trực tiếp house No. 028386/HD-TCN between Mrs. A and Mr. N3 on September 7, 2005, đá bóng trực tiếp ID card of Mr. N3 had expired, so đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed No. 028386 also has no legal value.

Thirdly, at đá bóng trực tiếp time of signing đá bóng trực tiếp contract, Mrs. A and Mr. N3 were both 74 years old, đá bóng trực tiếp Public Notary Office neither sought forensic mental health assessment nor witnesses.

Fourthly, Mrs. L, đá bóng trực tiếp daughter-in-law, intentionally deceived Mrs. A into making a gift deed of đá bóng trực tiếp house.

đá bóng trực tiếp defendant, Public Notary Office I, Ho Chi Minh City authorized Ms. N4 to present as follows: On September 7, 2005, đá bóng trực tiếp Public Notary Office I, Ho Chi Minh City notarized a gift deed (a part of house 7A/ 5/21 Street D8) No. 028386/HD-TCN between đá bóng trực tiếp donor, Mrs. A and đá bóng trực tiếp donee, Mr. N3.

On April 17, 2007, đá bóng trực tiếp Public Notary Office I, Ho Chi Minh City notarized đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed of đá bóng trực tiếp house 7A/5/21 Street D8) No. 14077/HD-TCN between đá bóng trực tiếp donor, Mr. N3 and đá bóng trực tiếp donee, Mrs. L. đá bóng trực tiếp notarization of đá bóng trực tiếp above-mentioned 02 house gift deeds has been carried out by đá bóng trực tiếp notary in accordance with đá bóng trực tiếp statutory procedures and at đá bóng trực tiếp time of notarization, đá bóng trực tiếp transaction property met all đá bóng trực tiếp requirements to perform đá bóng trực tiếp transaction, đá bóng trực tiếp parties to đá bóng trực tiếp deed all had active legal capacity, đá bóng trực tiếp aforementioned acts were in accordance with đá bóng trực tiếp provisions of law, đá bóng trực tiếp parties confirmed that they read đá bóng trực tiếp deed, in line with their will and purposes of đá bóng trực tiếp parties when entering into đá bóng trực tiếp contract and agree with đá bóng trực tiếp content of đá bóng trực tiếp contract "I have read and agree" and voluntarily signed and appended fingerprints to đá bóng trực tiếp deed in front of đá bóng trực tiếp notary. Therefore, đá bóng trực tiếp Public Notary Office I, Ho Chi Minh City disagreed with đá bóng trực tiếp plaintiff’s petition for nullifying đá bóng trực tiếp 2 gift deeds of đá bóng trực tiếp house, and asked đá bóng trực tiếp Court to stop handling đá bóng trực tiếp case because đá bóng trực tiếp prescriptive period for initiating a lawsuit had expired under Article 132 of đá bóng trực tiếpCivil Code 2015 in Viet Nam.

Representation of person with related rights and obligations, Mrs. L: In 1987, she married Mr. G and moved to live in đá bóng trực tiếp family of her husband's parents, Mrs. A and Mr. N3, at đá bóng trực tiếp house 7A/5/21 D8 Street. In 2005, Mrs. A gave a part of đá bóng trực tiếp house 7A/5/21 D8 Street as a gift to Mr. N3. In 2007, Mr. N3 gifted đá bóng trực tiếp whole house mentioned above to Mrs. L under đá bóng trực tiếp house gift deed No. 14077/HD-TCN dated April 17, 2007 certified by đá bóng trực tiếp Public Notary Office. After being gifted đá bóng trực tiếp house, she repaired đá bóng trực tiếp house, applied for a construction permit and completed đá bóng trực tiếp construction in her name, and she was recognized by đá bóng trực tiếp People's Committee of District 7, Ho Chi Minh City for her valid land use rights and house ownership. Mr. G (her former husband) has a private property commitment, certified on November 4, 2010 at đá bóng trực tiếp People's Committee of District P7, District 7, Ho Chi Minh City. Now, she asks đá bóng trực tiếp Court to suspend đá bóng trực tiếp settlement of đá bóng trực tiếp case because đá bóng trực tiếp prescriptive period has expired.

Persons with related rights and obligations: Ms. S, Mr. T, Mr. U, Mr. V and Ms. X presented: Mr. T, Mr. U and Ms. X are đá bóng trực tiếp fixed tenants of đá bóng trực tiếp house 7A/5/21 D8 Street, they have nothing to do with ownership of đá bóng trực tiếp house 7A/5/21 D8 Street, Ward P7, District 7, Ho Chi Minh City.

At đá bóng trực tiếp first instance court hearing:

đá bóng trực tiếp defenders of Mr. E, Mr. G and Mr. C presented:

-Regarding prescriptive period for instituting lawsuits: When signing đá bóng trực tiếp authorization contract or gift deed of đá bóng trực tiếp house 7A/5/21 D8 Street, đá bóng trực tiếp Public Notary Office I, Ho Chi Minh City did not have any evidence that they gave Mrs. A a copy of đá bóng trực tiếp contract/deed, so she did not know đá bóng trực tiếp entire contents of đá bóng trực tiếp contract/deed; on đá bóng trực tiếp other hand, after Mr. N3's death, on January 15, 2018, Mrs. A would like to extract a copy of đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed of đá bóng trực tiếp house No. 028386/HD-TCN dated September 7, 2005 at đá bóng trực tiếp Public Notary Office I, Ho Chi Minh City. At that time, she knew đá bóng trực tiếp existence of đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed No. 028386/HD-TCN. So, on March 8, 2018, Mrs. A filed a lawsuit, requesting to declare that đá bóng trực tiếp notarized gift deed of đá bóng trực tiếp house No. 028386/HD- TCN between Mrs. A and Mr. N3 null and void, because Mrs. A was deceived.

- Three documents kept at đá bóng trực tiếp People's Committee of District P7, District 7, Ho Chi Minh City, including: đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed of house dated August 25, 2005; application for confirmation of real estate status to transfer real estate ownership dated July 13, 2005 and Mr. G's commitment of private property dated November 4, 2010, confirming đá bóng trực tiếp house 7A/5/21 D8 Street was đá bóng trực tiếp private property of Mrs. L. These documents are not well-grounded to determine that before going to đá bóng trực tiếp Notary Public Office I, Ho Chi Minh City, in July and August 2005, Mrs. A had đá bóng trực tiếp will to give Mr. N3 đá bóng trực tiếp whole house 7A/5/21 D8 Street, because đá bóng trực tiếp original documents could not be identified.

Mr. D, representing Ms. B and Mr. C, added: In đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed No. 028386/HD-TCN dated September 7, 2005 made by đá bóng trực tiếp Public Notary Office I, đá bóng trực tiếp title of đá bóng trực tiếp contract was đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed of đá bóng trực tiếp house but at đá bóng trực tiếp end of đá bóng trực tiếp contract, it was written as đá bóng trực tiếp seller and đá bóng trực tiếp buyer. Thus, this civil transaction did not comply with đá bóng trực tiếp statutory form, so it was void according to Article 129 of đá bóng trực tiếp Civil Code 2015.

Ms. H, on behalf of Mr. G, presented: Mr. G learned that Mr. N3 loved his two grandsons, who are đá bóng trực tiếp children of Mr. G and Mrs. L, so Mr. N3 made a gift deed of đá bóng trực tiếp entire house 7A/5/21 D8 Street to Mrs. L., but in fact, this house still belongs to Mr. N3. Mrs. L used this house gift deed as a security for Mr. N3's two grandsons to be financially eligible to study abroad, so this is a fake contract according to Article 124 of đá bóng trực tiếp Civil Code 2015.

đá bóng trực tiếp defendant, Public Notary Office I, Ho Chi Minh City authorized Ms. N4 to present as follows: Since đá bóng trực tiếp lawsuit petition of Mrs. A and her successors to legal rights and obligations, Ms. B, Mr. C, Mr. G and Mr. E has been instituted after đá bóng trực tiếp prescriptive period, đá bóng trực tiếp defendant requests đá bóng trực tiếp Trial Panel to suspend đá bóng trực tiếp settlement of đá bóng trực tiếp case because đá bóng trực tiếp prescriptive period for initiating a lawsuit has expired under Clause 1, Article 132 of đá bóng trực tiếp Civil Code 2015.

đá bóng trực tiếp defender of đá bóng trực tiếp legal rights and interests of Ms. Nguyen Thi Bach Ngan presented: Mrs. L was gifted đá bóng trực tiếp whole house by Mr. N3 at 7A/5/21 D8 Street under đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed of đá bóng trực tiếp house No. 14077/HD-TCN, notarized by đá bóng trực tiếp notary of đá bóng trực tiếp Public Notary Office I, Ho Chi Minh City on April 17, 2007. This was valid and legal. There is no legal basis to consider đá bóng trực tiếp unrestricted prescriptive period for initiating a lawsuit under Articles 123, 124 of đá bóng trực tiếp Civil Code 2015. đá bóng trực tiếp prescriptive period for instituting a lawsuit as to đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed of house No. 028386/HD-TCN between Mrs. A and Mr. N3 dated September 7, 2005 and đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed of house No. 14077/HD-TCN dated April 17, 2007 between Mr. N3 and Mrs. L has expired. So, request đá bóng trực tiếp Trial Panel to suspend đá bóng trực tiếp settlement of đá bóng trực tiếp case because đá bóng trực tiếp prescriptive period for initiating a lawsuit has expired under Clause 1, Article 132 of đá bóng trực tiếp Civil Code 2015.

đá bóng trực tiếp witnesses Mr. Y1, Mr. Y2 and Mr. Y3 presented: Mr. Y1, Mr. Y2 and Mr. Y3 heard that Mrs. A authorized Mr. N3 a part of đá bóng trực tiếp house 7A/5/21 D8 Street for Mr. N3's convenience in leasing out đá bóng trực tiếp house; at đá bóng trực tiếp same time, Mr. Y2, Mr. Y3 also said that Mr. N3 loved his two grandsons, who are Mrs. L's children, so he lent Mrs. L đá bóng trực tiếp house 7A/5/21 D8 Street to complete đá bóng trực tiếp financial procedures for đá bóng trực tiếp two grandchildren to study abroad.

In đá bóng trực tiếp first instance civil judgment No. 619/2019/DS-ST dated December 31, 2019, đá bóng trực tiếp People’s Court of District 10, Ho Chi Minh City judged:

1. Suspend settlement of civil case file No. 175/TB-TLVA on March 26, 2018, file No. 175A/TB-TLVA on April 17, 2018, file No. 175B/TB-TLVA on 27 175B/TB-TLVA dated August 23, 2019 on đá bóng trực tiếp civil case “Dispute over đá bóng trực tiếp request to declare đá bóng trực tiếp notarized document null and void” because đá bóng trực tiếp prescriptive period for initiating a lawsuit has expired according to Clauses 1 and 2, Article 132 of đá bóng trực tiếp Civil Code 2015;

2. Do not accept đá bóng trực tiếp entire request of Mrs. A or đá bóng trực tiếp successors to Mrs. A's litigation rights and obligations, Mrs. B, Mr. C, Mr. E and Mr. G on đá bóng trực tiếp civil case "dispute over request to declare notarized documents null and void” for đá bóng trực tiếp following deeds:

a. đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed of partial house No. 7A/5/21 (old No. 55/E11) D8 Street, Ward P7, District 7, Ho Chi Minh City, certified by đá bóng trực tiếp Public Notary Office I, Ho Chi Minh City, notarization No. 028386/HD-TCN, volume 06 TP/CC-SCC/HDGD dated September 7, 2005, between Mrs. A and Mr. N3;

b. đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed of entire house No. 7A/5/21 (old No. 55/E11) D8 Street, Ward P7, District 7, Ho Chi Minh City, certified by đá bóng trực tiếp Public Notary Office I, Ho Chi Minh City, notarization No. 028386/HD-TCN, volume 02 TP/CC-SCC/HDGD dated April 17, 2007, between Mrs. L and Mr. N3.

3. Note that Mrs. L did not request to address đá bóng trực tiếp consequences of đá bóng trực tiếp Decision on application of provisional urgent measures No. 14/QD-BPKCTT dated July 10, 2018 of đá bóng trực tiếp People's Court of District 10.

4. Cancel đá bóng trực tiếp Decision on application of provisional urgent measures No. 14/QD- BPKCTT dated July 10, 2018 of đá bóng trực tiếp People's Court of District 10.

-Request Bank N5 to release Official Letter: “Confirmation of furnishing a Bid Security” No. 30/CV-VAH 18 dated April 20, 2018 promptly after đá bóng trực tiếp judgment takes legal effect, refund Mrs. A. đá bóng trực tiếp entire amount of VND 200,000,000 (two hundred million dong) in đá bóng trực tiếp savings account number 260842249 that Bank N5 has frozen according to đá bóng trực tiếp above Letter.

In addition, đá bóng trực tiếp first-instance judgment also states đá bóng trực tiếp court fee, right to appeal, and đá bóng trực tiếp right to enforce đá bóng trực tiếp judgment of đá bóng trực tiếp litigants.

On January 13, 2020, Mr. C, Mr. E and Mr. G are đá bóng trực tiếp successors to đá bóng trực tiếp litigation rights and obligations of Mrs. A (đá bóng trực tiếp plaintiff) to appeal đá bóng trực tiếp entire first-instance civil judgment No. 619/2019/DS-ST dated December 31, 2019, đá bóng trực tiếp People’s Court of District 10, Ho Chi Minh City.

At đá bóng trực tiếp appellate court hearing:

Mr. D, representing Mr. C; Mr. E and Ms. H, representing Mr. G who is đá bóng trực tiếp successor to litigation rights and obligations of Mrs. A (đá bóng trực tiếp plaintiff), request đá bóng trực tiếp appellate court to reverse đá bóng trực tiếp first instance judgment, with đá bóng trực tiếp following grounds:

-đá bóng trực tiếp first-instance court suspended đá bóng trực tiếp settlement of đá bóng trực tiếp case on đá bóng trực tiếp grounds that đá bóng trực tiếp prescriptive period for initiating a lawsuit had expired. This was erroneous. Because, after Mr. N3 died in June 2017, only when seeking copies of đá bóng trực tiếp documents related to đá bóng trực tiếp house 7A/5/21 D8 Street for inheritance that Mrs. A knew đá bóng trực tiếp existence of đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed of đá bóng trực tiếp house No. 028386/HD- TCN dated September 7, 2005 between Mrs. A and Mr. N3, not a contract that authorized Mr. N3 to lease out đá bóng trực tiếp house. After learning that she was deceived, on March 15, 2018, Mrs. A filed a lawsuit to claim that đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed of đá bóng trực tiếp house No. 028386/HD-TCN was null and void.  During đá bóng trực tiếp settlement of đá bóng trực tiếp case at đá bóng trực tiếp first instance level, Mrs. A found out that Mr. N3 gifted đá bóng trực tiếp house to Mrs. L under đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed No. 14077/HD-TCN dated April 17, 2007 so on April 16, 2018 Mrs. A filed an additional lawsuit requesting to declare that đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed No. 14077/HD-TCN was null and void.

-Ms. B lives abroad (France) so she requests đá bóng trực tiếp People's Court of Ho Chi Minh City to keep đá bóng trực tiếp case file for đá bóng trực tiếp People's Court of Ho Chi Minh City to re-hear đá bóng trực tiếp case according to đá bóng trực tiếp first instance procedure.

Mr. D, representing Ms. B as đá bóng trực tiếp successor to đá bóng trực tiếp litigation rights and obligations of Mrs. A (đá bóng trực tiếp plaintiff), presented: Ms. B has resided abroad since 2016 so far. Ms. B also requested đá bóng trực tiếp court to turn down đá bóng trực tiếp first-instance judgment as presented by Mr. C, Mr. E and Mr. G.

đá bóng trực tiếp defendant from đá bóng trực tiếp Public Notary Office I, Ho Chi Minh City, represented by Mr. Do Quoc D1 disagrees with đá bóng trực tiếp appeal of đá bóng trực tiếp appellants; requests đá bóng trực tiếp court to affirm đá bóng trực tiếp first-instance judgment.

đá bóng trực tiếp person with related interests and obligations, Ms. Nguyen Thi Bach L, represented by Ms. M and Mr. N, disagrees with đá bóng trực tiếp appeal of đá bóng trực tiếp appellants; request đá bóng trực tiếp court to affirm đá bóng trực tiếp first-instance judgment.

đá bóng trực tiếp defender of Ms. Nguyen Thi Bach L presented: Before signing đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed No. 028386 dated September 7, 2005, Mrs. A made an application for confirmation of real estate to transfer real estate ownership, Mrs. A and Mr. N3 jointly noted "Preparing documents to sell, give, exchange real estate No. 14620/2000 Nguyen Tri Phuong" and approved by đá bóng trực tiếp People's Committee of Ward P7, District 7, Ho Chi Minh City. On đá bóng trực tiếp other hand, 15 days before đá bóng trực tiếp notarization of đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed No. 028386 dated September 7, 2005, Mrs. A made and signed đá bóng trực tiếp gifting document on August 25, 2005 certified by đá bóng trực tiếp People's Committee of Ward P7, District 7, Ho Chi Minh City. However, because đá bóng trực tiếp gifting of a house through a gifting document is not under đá bóng trực tiếp authority of đá bóng trực tiếp People's Committee of Ward P7, District 7, Ho Chi Minh City, Mrs. A quickly made đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed at đá bóng trực tiếp Notary Public Office I, Ho Chi Minh City.

-On page 4 of đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed No. 028386 dated September 7, 2005 that đá bóng trực tiếp plaintiff submitted, in đá bóng trực tiếp gifting section, Mrs. A signed, appended fingerprints and confirmed "I have read and agreed to gift đá bóng trực tiếp house". Accordingly, Mrs. A personally wrote đá bóng trực tiếp phrase "Gift đá bóng trực tiếp house" to confirm her will again, before signing đá bóng trực tiếp contract. After being gifted đá bóng trực tiếp above-mentioned house by Mr. N3, Mrs. L used her money to repair đá bóng trực tiếp house and Mrs. L was granted a certificate of land use rights and housing ownership by đá bóng trực tiếp People's Committee of District 7, Ho Chi Minh City on August 2, 2011. Thus, Mrs. L is đá bóng trực tiếp legal owner of this house in accordance with đá bóng trực tiếp law. Therefore, đá bóng trực tiếp appeal argues that Mrs. A only knew đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed No. 028386 dated September 7, 2005 between Mrs. A and Mr. N3 but not đá bóng trực tiếp authorization contract after đá bóng trực tiếp Public Notary Office I, Ho Chi Minh City Ho Chi Minh issued a copy is completely poorly-grounded. Accordingly, đá bóng trực tiếp prescriptive period for filing a lawsuit declaring đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed No. 028386 dated September 7, 2005 has expired as prescribed in Clause 1, Article 132 of đá bóng trực tiếp Civil Code 2015. Therefore, propose đá bóng trực tiếp Trial Panel to dismiss đá bóng trực tiếp appeal and affirm đá bóng trực tiếp first instance judgment.

Representation of person with related rights and obligations, Mr. Nguyen Hung C: He is đá bóng trực tiếp son of Mr. G and Mrs. Nguyen Thi Bach L. Since childhood, he has lived at house 7A/5/21 D8 Street, Ward P7, District 7 , Ho Chi Minh City.

Persons with related rights and obligations: Ms. Nguyen Thi T, Mr. C Le Duc T1 and Ms. To Thi M have request for trial in absentia; Mr. Luu Tan L1 was absent.

Representation of đá bóng trực tiếp witness, Mr. Y2: He heard that Mrs. A authorized Mr. N3 a part of đá bóng trực tiếp house 7A/5/21 D8 Street for Mr. N3's convenience in leasing out đá bóng trực tiếp house; and Mr. N3 also said that Mr. N3 loved his two grandsons, who are Mrs. L's children, so he lent Mrs. L đá bóng trực tiếp house 7A/5/21 D8 Street to complete đá bóng trực tiếp financial procedures for đá bóng trực tiếp two grandchildren to study abroad.

Mr. Y1 and Mr. Y3 are absent.

Opinions of đá bóng trực tiếp representative of Ho Chi Minh City People's Procuracy: From đá bóng trực tiếp time of accepting đá bóng trực tiếp case until đá bóng trực tiếp decision to bring đá bóng trực tiếp case to trial, đá bóng trực tiếp judge must strictly comply with đá bóng trực tiếp provisions of law and at đá bóng trực tiếp court sessions, đá bóng trực tiếp Trial Panel shall comply with đá bóng trực tiếp procedures of đá bóng trực tiếp Civil Procedure Code 2015.

đá bóng trực tiếp involved parties strictly comply with đá bóng trực tiếp provisions of đá bóng trực tiếp law.

Regarding legal proceedings: đá bóng trực tiếp house 7A/5/21 D8 Street, Ward P7, District 7, Ho Chi Minh City was bought by Mr. N3 and Mrs. A. Mr. N3 and Mrs. A were granted đá bóng trực tiếp certificate of house ownership and land use rights by đá bóng trực tiếp People's Committee of Ho Chi Minh City at No. 14620/2000 dated November 28, 2000.

On September 7, 2005, at đá bóng trực tiếp Notary Public Office I, Ho Chi Minh City, Mrs. A and Mr. N3 signed a gift deed No. 028386/HD-TCN.

On April 17, 2007, at đá bóng trực tiếp Public Notary Office I, Ho Chi Minh City, Mrs. L and Mr. N3 signed a gift deed No. 14077/HD-TCN.

On March 8, 2018, Mrs. A filed a lawsuit to request đá bóng trực tiếp cancellation of đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed of đá bóng trực tiếp house No. 028386/HD-TCN and April 16, 201 8, Mrs. A filed an additional lawsuit requesting to cancel đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed No. 14077/HD-TCN.

During settlement of đá bóng trực tiếp case, Mrs. N4 - representative of đá bóng trực tiếp defendant, đá bóng trực tiếp Public Notary Office I, Ho Chi Minh City requested đá bóng trực tiếp first-instance court to apply đá bóng trực tiếp prescriptive period prescribed in Clause 2, Article 184 of đá bóng trực tiếp Civil Procedure Code 2015.

đá bóng trực tiếp first instance civil judgment No. 619/2019/DS-ST dated December 31, 2019, đá bóng trực tiếp People’s Court of District 10, Ho Chi Minh City judged:

“1. Suspension of đá bóng trực tiếp settlement of civil case No. 175/TB-TLVA dated March 26, 2018… about đá bóng trực tiếp civil case “Disputes over đá bóng trực tiếp request to declare notarized documents null and void” as đá bóng trực tiếp prescriptive period for initiating a lawsuit has expired according to đá bóng trực tiếp provisions of Clauses 1 and 2, Article 132 of đá bóng trực tiếp Civil Code 2015”… According to đá bóng trực tiếp provisions of Clause 3, Article 217 of đá bóng trực tiếp Civil Procedure Code 2015, “…when đá bóng trực tiếp case is suspended, đá bóng trực tiếp Court will delete it in đá bóng trực tiếp court case logbook, return đá bóng trực tiếp lawsuit petition, evidence and documents to đá bóng trực tiếp involved parties…” However, đá bóng trực tiếp first-instance court still handled đá bóng trực tiếp case as indicated in Article 2, part of đá bóng trực tiếp decision of đá bóng trực tiếp first-instance judgment: “2. Do not accept đá bóng trực tiếp entire request of Mrs. A or đá bóng trực tiếp successors of Mrs. A's litigation rights and obligations, Mrs. B, Mr. C, Mr. E and Mr. G on đá bóng trực tiếp civil case "dispute over request to declare notarized documents null and void”…This was a serious procedural error. Therefore, it is necessary to reverse đá bóng trực tiếp first-instance judgment and remand đá bóng trực tiếp case file to đá bóng trực tiếp People's Court of District 10, Ho Chi Minh City to re-settle đá bóng trực tiếp case according to first-instance procedures. Therefore, accept partial appeal of Mr. C, Mr. E and Mr. G.

JUDGEMENT OF đá bóng trực tiếp COURT

After taking account of đá bóng trực tiếp documents contained in đá bóng trực tiếp case files which have been verified at đá bóng trực tiếp trial and based on đá bóng trực tiếp results of đá bóng trực tiếp adversarial process at đá bóng trực tiếp trial, đá bóng trực tiếp People’s Procuracy representative and đá bóng trực tiếp Trial Panel determine:

[1] At đá bóng trực tiếp trial, Ms. S, Mr. T and Ms. X who have related interests and obligations have requests for trial in absentia; Mr. U is a person with related rights and obligations; Mr. Y1 and Mr. Y3 are witnesses, đá bóng trực tiếp Court has convened them for đá bóng trực tiếp second time, but đá bóng trực tiếp above mentioned parties are still absent. Pursuant to Clauses 2 and 3, Article 296 of đá bóng trực tiếp Civil Procedure Code 2015, đá bóng trực tiếp Court conducts trial in absentia as prescribed by law.

[2] At đá bóng trực tiếp lawsuit filed on March 15, 2018, plaintiff Mrs. A (died on August 1, 2019) requested to cancel đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed of đá bóng trực tiếp house (a part of đá bóng trực tiếp house 7A/5/21 D8 Street, Ward). P7, District 7, Ho Chi Minh City) No. 028386/HD -TCN dated September 7, 2005 between Mrs. A and Mr. N3. On April 16, 2018, Mrs. A filed an additional lawsuit requesting to cancel đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed of đá bóng trực tiếp house (đá bóng trực tiếp whole house 7A/5/21 D8 Street, District P7, District 7, Ho Chi Minh City) No. 14077/HD -TCN dated April 17, 2007 between Mr. N3 and Mrs. L.

[3] đá bóng trực tiếp first instance civil judgment No. 619/2019/DS-ST dated December 31, 2019, đá bóng trực tiếp People’s Court of District 10, Ho Chi Minh City judged: “1. Suspension of đá bóng trực tiếp settlement of đá bóng trực tiếp civil case file No. 175/TB-TLVA dated March 26, 2018; case file No. 175A/TB-TLVA April 17, 2018; case file No. 175B/TB-TLVA on December 27, 2018 and case file No. 175B/TB-TLVA on August 23, 2019 on civil cases: “Dispute over request for declaring notarized document null and void” because đá bóng trực tiếp prescriptive period for initiating a lawsuit has expired as prescribed in Clauses 1 and 2, Article 132 of đá bóng trực tiếp Civil Code 2015;

2. Do not accept đá bóng trực tiếp entire request of Mrs. A or đá bóng trực tiếp successors of Mrs. A's litigation rights and obligations, Mrs. B, Mr. C, Mr. E and Mr. G on đá bóng trực tiếp civil case "dispute over request to declare notarized documents null and void” for đá bóng trực tiếp following deeds:

a. đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed of partial house No. 7A/5/21 (old No. 55/E11) D8 Street, Ward P7, District 7, Ho Chi Minh City, notarized by đá bóng trực tiếp Public Notary Office I, Ho Chi Minh City No. 028386/HD-TCN, volume 06 TP/CC-SCC/HDGD dated September 7, 2005, between Mrs. A and Mr. N3;

b. đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed of entire house No. 7A/5/21 (old No. 55/E11) D8 Street, Ward P7, District 7, Ho Chi Minh City, notarized by đá bóng trực tiếp Public Notary Office I, Ho Chi Minh City notarization number 028386/HD-TCN, volume No. 02 TP/CC-SCC/HDGD dated April 17, 2007, between Mrs. L and Mr. N3.”…

[4] According to Clause 3, Article 217 of đá bóng trực tiếp Civil Procedure Code 2015: “đá bóng trực tiếp court shall issue a decision to terminate đá bóng trực tiếp settlement of đá bóng trực tiếp civil case, delete đá bóng trực tiếp name of that case from đá bóng trực tiếp court case logbook and return đá bóng trực tiếp lawsuit petition, enclosed documents and evidence to đá bóng trực tiếp involved parties if required…".

[5] Considering that đá bóng trực tiếp plaintiff's request to initiate a lawsuit had expired under Clauses 1 and 2, Article 132 of đá bóng trực tiếp Civil Code 2015, đá bóng trực tiếp first-instance court declared "1. Suspension of đá bóng trực tiếp settlement of đá bóng trực tiếp civil case because đá bóng trực tiếp prescriptive period for initiating a lawsuit has expired…” However, đá bóng trực tiếp disposition part of đá bóng trực tiếp first-instance civil judgment declared: “2. Do not accept đá bóng trực tiếp entire request of Mrs. A or đá bóng trực tiếp successors of Mrs. A's litigation rights and obligations, Mrs. B, Mr. C, Mr. E and Mr. G on đá bóng trực tiếp civil case "dispute over request to declare notarized documents null and void”. Thus, đá bóng trực tiếp first-instance court both declared "Suspend đá bóng trực tiếp settlement of đá bóng trực tiếp civil case because đá bóng trực tiếp prescriptive period for initiating a lawsuit has expired", and declared "Do not accept đá bóng trực tiếp entire request of Mrs. A for declaring đá bóng trực tiếp notarized document null and void” is a serious procedural error, affecting đá bóng trực tiếp interests of đá bóng trực tiếp litigants. Upon suspension of đá bóng trực tiếp case settlement, đá bóng trực tiếp first-instance court did not clarify if there was a handover between Mrs. A and Mr. N3 of đá bóng trực tiếp house 7A/5/21. D8 Street, Ward P7, District 7, Ho Chi Minh City after Mrs. A signed đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed of a part of đá bóng trực tiếp house on September 7, 2005; đá bóng trực tiếp first-instance court also did not clarify if there was a handover between Mr. N3 and Mrs. L of đá bóng trực tiếp whole house 7A/5/21 D8 Street, Ward P7, District 7, Ho Chi Minh City on July 14, 2007. In order to determine đá bóng trực tiếp time that Mrs. A knew that her legitimate rights and interests have been infringed.

[6] Regarding đá bóng trực tiếp appeal of Mr. C, Mr. E and Mr. G, who inherit đá bóng trực tiếp litigation rights and obligations of đá bóng trực tiếp plaintiff Mrs. A, requesting đá bóng trực tiếp People's Court of Ho Chi Minh City to keep đá bóng trực tiếp case file at đá bóng trực tiếp People's Court of Ho Chi Minh City to re-settle đá bóng trực tiếp case according to first-instance procedures, since Ms. B lives abroad (France).

[7] On March 26, 2018, đá bóng trực tiếp court of first instance accepted đá bóng trực tiếp case No. 175/TB-TLVA and No.175A/TB-TLVA dated April 17, 2018 regarding: “Dispute over request to declare a notarized document null and void”. This acceptance was made under their jurisdiction specified in Clause 11 Article 26; Point a, Clause 1, Article 35 of đá bóng trực tiếp Civil Procedure Code 2015. On August 1, 2019, Mrs. A (đá bóng trực tiếp plaintiff) died. After Mrs. A's death, đá bóng trực tiếp first-instance court brought đá bóng trực tiếp successors of Mrs. A's litigation rights and obligations as Mr. C, Mr. E, Mr. G and Ms. B, address: 69 Street D1 75019 Paris, into đá bóng trực tiếp proceedings, which was a new fact that made đá bóng trực tiếp case fall under đá bóng trực tiếp jurisdiction of another court. According to đá bóng trực tiếp Article 471 of đá bóng trực tiếp Civil Procedure Code 2015 and Clause 5, Article 7 ofNghị quyết 03/2012/NQ-HĐTP hướng dẫndated December 3, 2012 of đá bóng trực tiếp Council of Judges of đá bóng trực tiếp Supreme People's Court, đá bóng trực tiếp People's Court of district level that accepted đá bóng trực tiếp case shall resume đá bóng trực tiếp settlement of đá bóng trực tiếp case. Therefore, deny this part of đá bóng trực tiếp appeal of Mr. C, Mr. E and Mr. G.

[8] From đá bóng trực tiếp foregoing, đá bóng trực tiếp Trial Panel considers that đá bóng trực tiếp first-instance court made a serious procedural error, so it accepted a part of đá bóng trực tiếp appeal of Mr. C, Mr. E and Mr. G, who are đá bóng trực tiếp successors of đá bóng trực tiếp litigation rights and obligations of đá bóng trực tiếp plaintiff, Mrs. A, as well as đá bóng trực tiếp opinion of đá bóng trực tiếp representative of đá bóng trực tiếp People's Procuracy of Ho Chi Minh City, it is necessary to reverse đá bóng trực tiếp entire first-instance judgment and remand đá bóng trực tiếp case file to đá bóng trực tiếp People's Court of district Q10, Ho Chi Minh City to re-settle đá bóng trực tiếp case under first-instance procedures.

[9]. Regarding đá bóng trực tiếp content: đá bóng trực tiếp court of appeal reversed đá bóng trực tiếp first-instance judgment in terms of đá bóng trực tiếp proceedings, so đá bóng trực tiếp Trial Panel did not consider đá bóng trực tiếp content.

[10] Regarding first instance civil court fee: đá bóng trực tiếp obligation to bear first-instance court fee is redefined when re-settling đá bóng trực tiếp case according to first-instance procedures.

[11] Regarding appellate civil fee: Due to đá bóng trực tiếp reverse of đá bóng trực tiếp entire first-instance judgment, Mr. C, Mr. E and Mr. G, who are đá bóng trực tiếp successors of plaintiff's litigation rights and obligations would not have to bear đá bóng trực tiếp appellate court fee. They will be refunded VND 300,000 each (Three hundred thousand dong).

For đá bóng trực tiếp foregoing reasons;

DISPOSITION

Pursuant to Clause 3, Article 148; Clause 3, Article 308, Article 310 and Article 313 of đá bóng trực tiếpCivil Procedure Code 2015 in Viet Nam;

Pursuant toNghị quyết 326/2016/UBTVQH14 quy định về mứcdated December 30, 2016 stipulating đá bóng trực tiếp court fees and charges, collection, exemption, reduction, management, and use thereof.

Declare:

1. Accept partial appeal of Mr. C, Mr. E and Mr. G, who are đá bóng trực tiếp successors of đá bóng trực tiếp litigation rights and obligations of Mrs. A (đá bóng trực tiếp plaintiff).

2. Reverse đá bóng trực tiếp civil first instance Judgment No. 619/2019/DS-ST dated December 31, 2019, đá bóng trực tiếp People’s Court of District 10, Ho Chi Minh City.

3. Remand đá bóng trực tiếp case file to đá bóng trực tiếp People's Court of District 10, Ho Chi Minh City to re-hear đá bóng trực tiếp case under đá bóng trực tiếp first instance procedure.

4. Regarding appellate civil fee: Mr. C, Mr. E and Mr. G, who are đá bóng trực tiếp successors of đá bóng trực tiếp litigation rights and obligations of Mrs. A (đá bóng trực tiếp plaintiff) do not have to bear this fee.

Refund of advanced payment of appellate court fee to Mr. C VND 300,000 (Three hundred thousand VND) according to đá bóng trực tiếp receipt on collection of court fee advance No. AA/2018/0039816 dated January 15, 2020 of đá bóng trực tiếp Sub-department civil judgment enforcement in District 10, Ho Chi Minh City.

Refund đá bóng trực tiếp advanced payment of appellate court fee to Mr. E VND 300,000 (Three hundred thousand VND) according to đá bóng trực tiếp receipt on collection of court fee advance No. AA/2018/0039815 dated January 15, 2020 of đá bóng trực tiếp Sub-department civil judgment enforcement in District 10, Ho Chi Minh City.

Refund of advanced payment of appellate court fee to Mr. g VND 300,000 (Three hundred thousand VND) according to đá bóng trực tiếp receipt on collection of court fee advance No. AA/2018/0039817 dated January 15, 2020 of đá bóng trực tiếp Sub-department civil judgment enforcement in District 10, Ho Chi Minh City.

5. đá bóng trực tiếp appellate judgment takes legal effect from đá bóng trực tiếp date of pronouncement.