Precedent No. 06/2016/AL

Precedent No. 06/2016/AL on inheritance dispute case was adopted by the Council of Judges of the Supreme People's Court on April 6, 2016 and promulgated under Decision No. 220/QD-CA dated April 6, 2016 of the Chief Justice of the Supreme People's Court.

Source of precedent: 

Final Appeal Decision 100/2013/GDT-DS dated August 12, 2013 on inheritance dispute between the plaintiff Mr. Vu Dinh Hung and the defendants Ms. Vu Thi Tien (aka Hien), Ms. Vu Thi Hau; people with related rights and obligations including Ms. Vu Dinh Duong, Vu Thi Cam, Vu Thi Thao, Nguyen Thi Kim Oanh, Ha Thuy Linh.

Overview of case law:

- Case law:

In an inheritance dispute case where there are heirs living abroad, if the Court has made a judicial commission and collected evidence in accordance with the provisions of law but still cannot determine the address of those people, the Court will still resolve the plaintiff's request; if the inheritance, the heirs and the testator do not have a will are determined, the inheritance division for the plaintiff will be resolved in accordance with the provisions of law; the inheritance of absent persons whose addresses cannot be determined will be temporarily handed over to those living in the country for management and later handed over to the absent heirs.

- Legal basis:

Article 93; Point d, Clause 1, Article 168 of the 2004 Civil Procedure Code (corresponding to Article 105, Clause 1, Article 192 of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code);

Articles 676 and 685 of the 2005 Civil Code (corresponding to Articles 651 and 660 of the 2015 Civil Code).

CASE CONTENT

According to the July 1993 lawsuit, the plaintiff, Mr. Vu Dinh Hung, stated:

His parents, Mr. Vu Dinh Quang and Mrs. Nguyen Thi Thenh, had 6 children: Mr. Vu Dinh Duong, Mrs. Vu Thi Cam, Mrs. Vu Thi Thao, Mr. Vu Dinh Hung, Mrs. Vu Thi Tien (also known as Hien) and Mrs. Vu Thi Hau. Mr. Quang and Mrs. Thenh established a house at 66 Dong Xuan Street, Hoan Kiem District, Hanoi, with an area of ​​123 square meters. In 1979, Mr. Quang died without leaving a will, the house was lived in by Mr. Thenh and his 3 children, Mr. Hung, Mrs. Hau, and Mrs. Tien; Mr. Duong, Mrs. Thao, and Mrs. Cam all left the country. In the minutes of the family meeting on October 28, 1982, Mr. Thenh and Mr., Mrs. Tien, and Mrs. Hau agreed to temporarily divide the house into 3 parts for Mr., Mrs. Hau, and Mrs. Tien to use. In 1987, Mr. Thenh died. Then in 1989, Mrs. Tien secretly sold the house that was temporarily divided to Mrs. Nguyen Thi Kim Oanh. When he had already filed a lawsuit to divide the inheritance in court, on October 31, 1993, Mrs. Hau continued to sell the part of the house that Mrs. Hau had temporarily divided to Mrs. Ha Thuy Linh. This house sale was wrong. He determined that the 3 siblings living abroad (Mr. Duong, Mrs. Cam and Mrs. Thao) had written documents giving him the inheritance, so he requested to divide the inheritance of his parents according to the law.

Mr. Hung presented photocopies of the authorization papers dated March 3, 1992 of Mr. Vu Dinh Duong, May 1, 1993 of Ms. Vu Thi Cam, October 28, 1991 of Ms. Vu Thi Thao, all of which authorized Mr. Hung to manage and look after his portion of the property in the house at 66 Dong Xuan, which was 1/6 of the house. After filing the lawsuit, Mr. Hung presented additional "Paper of complete transfer of inheritance rights" dated April 25, 1995 of Mr. Vu Dinh Duong; "Paper of complete transfer of inheritance rights" dated May 10, 1995 of Ms. Vu Thi Cam; "Paper of complete transfer of inheritance rights" of Ms. Vu Thi Thao; These documents are all stated to be made abroad, all have the following content: the parents left the house at 66 Dong Xuan to their 6 children, but Ms. Tien (Hien) and Ms. Hau sold the part of the house that their parents left behind, violating their mother's instructions (not to sell, let outsiders live in)... Mr. Duong, Ms. Thao, and Ms. Cam made this document to give Mr. Hung 1/6 of the house at 66 Dong Xuan, each person will inherit so that Mr. Hung can maintain ancestral worship and also so that the three families of children and grandchildren living abroad have a place to go to worship their ancestors and request that Mr. Hung be entitled to inherit in kind (the documents Mr. Hung presented were all just photocopies).

The defendant stated:

Ms. Vu Thi Tien presented: Confirming the blood relationship and origin of the house at 66 Dong Xuan as Mr. Hung presented. In 1989, she sold the divided part to Ms. Oanh, handed over the house and completed the house purchase and sale procedures at the Hanoi Department of Housing and Land for the buyer. After moving in, Ms. Oanh also agreed with Mr. Hung and Ms. Hau to exchange some structures in the house for more convenient use. Later, due to Mr. Hung's complaint, the Department of Housing and Land revoked the house purchase and sale documents between her and Ms. Oanh. Ms. Hau also sold the divided part of the house to someone else. She confirmed that Mr. Thenh had given money to the 3 people to go abroad, so they had no request for this house. She sold her part of the house to Ms. Oanh, now she has no responsibility for the part of the house that was sold.

Ms. Vu Thi Hau presented: Confirming the blood relationship and origin of the house at 66 Dong Xuan as Mr. Hung presented and the division of the house as well as the fact that Ms. Tien sold a part as Ms. Tien presented. She confirmed that when selling, she informed her siblings abroad and they all agreed. She requested to divide the house into the part she sold to Ms. Linh and Mr. Khoi.

The person with related rights and obligations presents:

Mrs. Ha Thuy Linh and Mr. Hoang Manh Khoi stated: When they bought the house, Mrs. Hau showed them the minutes of the family meeting, so they agreed to buy. They paid in full, moved in and have been living there ever since, and requested to legalize the part of the house that Mrs. Hau bought.

Ms. Nguyen Thi Kim Oanh stated: On October 18, 1992, she bought a house from Ms. Tien for 30,000,000 VND. The purchase and sale was permitted by the government. After buying the house, she moved in and agreed to exchange some of the house's usage positions with Mr. Hung, requesting recognition of the house purchase and sale contract between Ms. Tien and her.

In the Civil Judgment at First Instance No. 20/DSST dated May 23, 1995

The Hanoi People's Court has accepted the request for inheritance division of Mr. Hung, Mr. Duong, Ms. Cam, and Ms. Thao, represented by Mr. Hung, requesting to divide the inheritance of Mr. Quang and Mr. Thenh. Accepting part of the will of Mr. Thenh made on October 28, 1982, determining the inheritance value of VND 1,228,151,520, dividing the inheritance in kind of houses and land for 3 people: Mr. Hung, Ms. Hau, and Ms. Tien. The purchase and sale between Ms. Tien, Ms. Hau, and Ms. Oanh and Ms. Linh was carried out in accordance with state regulations.

Ms. Tien appealed to reconsider the method of calculating the area of ​​inheritance. Mr. Hung appealed, saying that the Court's judgment was not objective.

In the Civil Appeal Judgment No. 115 dated October 10, 1995

The Supreme People's Court of Appeal in Hanoi decided: To annul the First Instance Judgment and transfer the case file to the Hanoi People's Court for re-trial.

In the Civil Judgment at First Instance No. 50/DSST dated September 11, 1996

The Hanoi People's Court decided to accept the request for inheritance division of Mr. Hung, Mr. Duong, Ms. Cam, Ms. Thao, represented by Mr. Hung, requesting to divide the inheritance of Mr. Quang and Mr. Thenh; acknowledging the voluntary act of Mr. Duong, Ms. Cam, and Ms. Thao living abroad to cede their inheritance to Mr. Hung and divide the property in kind for Mr. Hung, Ms. Hau, and Ms. Tien (each person gets 1/3 of the store and the house behind), Ms. Hau and Ms. Tien must pay the difference to Mr. Hung (Ms. Hau 156,824,381 VND; Ms. Tien 140,774,106 VND). The house sale between Ms. Tien, Ms. Hau and Ms. Oanh and Ms. Linh is illegal.

Mr. Hung appealed.

In Decision No. 82/TDC dated July 15, 1997, the Supreme People's Court of Appeal in Hanoi temporarily suspended the settlement of the case.

After Resolution No. 1037/2006/NQ-UBTVQH11 dated July 27, 2006 of the National Assembly Standing Committee on civil transactions on housing established before July 1, 1991 involving overseas Vietnamese, the Supreme People's Court of Appeal in Hanoi continued to resolve the case.

In the Civil Appeal Judgment No. 142/2007/DSPT dated July 3, 2007

The Supreme People's Court of Appeal in Hanoi has annulled the first instance judgment and assigned the Hanoi People's Court to re-examine the case at first instance with the following conclusion: The petition was written and signed by only Mr. Hung, the power of attorney of Mr. Duong, Ms. Thao, and Ms. Cam did not show the authorization to initiate a lawsuit to divide the inheritance (except for Ms. Thao's paper). Now the parties admit that Mr. Duong and Ms. Thao are both dead, so it is necessary to verify this and bring their heirs to participate in the proceedings; re-evaluate the real estate appropriately.

After re-accepting the case, the litigant stated that Mr. Duong and Ms. Thao died around 2002. The court of first instance requested Mr. Hung to provide the death certificates of Mr. Duong and Ms. Thao, and to supplement the lawsuit in accordance with the provisions of Clause 2, Article 164 of the Civil Procedure Code (full name, address, nationality of Mr. Duong and Ms. Thao's children; name and address of the person residing in the disputed land and house), but Mr. Hung could not provide them.

In Decision No. 04/2008/QDST-DS dated January 17, 2008, the Hanoi People's Court suspended the settlement of the case and paid the advance court fees to Mr. Hung.

On January 29, 2008, Mr. Hung appealed, claiming that the Court's suspension of the case was incorrect.

In Decision No. 168/2008/DS-QDPT dated September 4, 2008, the Supreme People's Court of Appeal in Hanoi accepted Mr. Hung's appeal and annulled the first instance decision on the grounds that the first instance court's application of Clause 2, Article 192 to suspend the settlement of the case was incorrect, depriving the litigant of the right to file a lawsuit.

After re-accepting the case, the Hanoi People's Court requested Mr. Hung to provide documents such as the names, ages, and addresses of Mr. Duong and Ms. Thao's heirs; authorization or refusal to receive inheritance from these people; and the names and addresses of those living in Ms. Oanh's house and land. Mr. Hung could not provide the above documents.

In Decision No. 54/DS-ST dated September 30, 2009, the Hanoi People's Court decided to: Suspend the settlement of the inheritance division case, return the petition and accompanying documents and evidence to Mr. Hung.

Mr. Hung appealed.

In Decision No. 44/2010/QD-PT dated March 9, 2010, the Supreme People's Court of Appeal in Hanoi decided to: Uphold the first instance decision.

Mr. Hung has a request for a final review.

In Decision No. 35/2013/KN-DS dated January 22, 2013, the Chief Justice of the Supreme People's Court appealed Decision No. 44/2010/QD-PT dated March 9, 2010 of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme People's Court in Hanoi. Requesting the Council of Judges of the Supreme People's Court to conduct a final review, annul the above-mentioned civil appeal decision and annul the Decision to suspend the settlement of the first-instance civil case No. 54/2009/DS-ST dated September 30, 2009 of the Hanoi People's Court; handing over the case file to the Hanoi People's Court for re-trial in accordance with the provisions of law.

At the appeal hearing, the representative of the Supreme People's Procuracy agreed with the appeal of the Chief Justice of the Supreme People's Court.

The Council of Judges of the Supreme People's Court determined:

House number 66 Dong Xuan street, Hoan Kiem district, Hanoi city was established by Mr. Vu Dinh Quang (died in 1979) and Nguyen Thi Thenh (died in 1987). They had 6 children, 3 of whom are Mr. Vu Dinh Duong, Mrs. Vu Thi Cam, Mrs. Vu Thi Thao, who settled abroad since 1979, and 3 of whom are in the country: Mr. Vu Dinh Hung, Mrs. Vu Thi Tien (Hien), Mrs. Vu Thi Hau.

After Mr. Quang died, only Mr. Thenh, Mr. Hung, Mrs. Tien, and Mrs. Hau managed this house. After Mr. Thenh died, Mr. Hung, Mrs. Tien, and Mrs. Hau divided the house into 3 parts to live in. On October 18, 1992, Mrs. Tien sold the part of the house she was using to Mrs. Nguyen Thi Kim Oanh and on October 31, 1993, Mrs. Hau sold the part of the house she was living in to Mrs. Ha Thuy Linh.

In 1993, Mr. Hung filed a lawsuit to request the division of his parents' inheritance of the above-mentioned land and house according to the law. The settlement of the case lasted from 1993 to 1996 and was temporarily suspended on appeal in 1997. In 2007, the case was re-accepted.

When resolving the case, before the temporary suspension of proceedings (1997), Mr. Hung provided applications and power of attorneys established in 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 by Mr. Duong, Ms. Cam, and Ms. Thao, with the content of assigning Mr. Hung to oversee and manage their inherited assets in the inheritance of the land and house at 66 Dong Xuan Street; then Mr. Hung provided documents established in 1995 by Mr. Duong, Ms. Thao, and Ms. Cam, with the content of giving Mr. Hung his inheritance share in the disputed assets.

The documents all have stamps and seals of the host countries (Mr. Duong in England, Ms. Cam in France and Ms. Thao in the US), but are only photocopies. However, the parties clearly stated the house number and address of the person who wrote the documents. During the process of re-handling the case after the temporary suspension period, Mr. Hung, Ms. Tien and Ms. Hau all stated that Mr. Duong and Ms. Thao had died around 2002. Mr. Hung confirmed that Ms. Cam and Ms. Thao's addresses had not changed, and he had contacted Mr. Duong's children but received no response (records 376, 377, 382).

The court of first instance requested Mr. Hung to provide the death certificates of Mr. Duong and Ms. Thao; the names and addresses of Mr. Duong and Ms. Thao's children. Mr. Hung stated that he could not provide them and requested the Court to collect evidence to resolve the case according to the law (record 390). Thus, the file already contained the addresses of those who lived abroad, and the request for Mr. Hung to provide the death certificates of Mr. Duong and Ms. Thao was unnecessary, because all three people in the country confirmed that these two people had died.

The Court of First Instance should have carried out the judicial entrustment procedure as prescribed, collected evidence against Mr. Duong and Ms. Thao to clarify the time of their death and, if the two deceased had heirs, asked them about their views on resolving the case.

Depending on each case, the new evidence will be used to resolve the case according to regulations. If no further evidence is collected, Mr. Hung's request to receive inheritance according to the law must still be resolved. Mr. Duong and Mrs. Thao's inheritance will be temporarily handed over to those living in the country to manage so that their heirs will have the right to receive it according to the law in the future, thus resolving the case completely.

As for those who are living in the part of the house that Ms. Tien sold, the obligation to provide their names is Ms. Tien's. The court of first instance requested Mr. Hung to provide the names of these people, which is not the right subject. The court of first instance said that Mr. Hung could not provide the names and addresses of Mr. Duong's children, Ms. Thao, the person who bought the house from Ms. Oanh, which is wrong to suspend the settlement of the case. The court of appeal should have annulled the first instance decision and re-settled the case, but it was wrong to uphold the first instance decision.

In addition, according to the documents in the file and the testimony of Mr. Hoang Manh Khoi on October 17, 2007 (record 373) and the "House Sale Paper" on October 31, 1993 (record 18), Ms. Hau sold the part of the house she was managing to Ms. Ha Thuy Linh (husband of Mr. Hoang Manh Khoi). The first instance and appeal decisions stating that Ms. Nguyen Thi Thuy Linh was the owner were incorrect and need to be adjusted accordingly.

For the above reasons, pursuant to Clause 3, Article 297 and Article 299 of the Civil Procedure Code;

DECISION

1. Annul Decision No. 44/2010/QD-PT dated March 9, 2010 of the Supreme People's Court of Appeal in Hanoi and annul Decision No. 54/2009/DS-ST dated September 30, 2009 of the Hanoi People's Court on the inheritance dispute between the plaintiff Mr. Vu Dinh Hung and the defendants Ms. Vu Thi Tien and Ms. Vu Thi Hau; the persons with related rights and obligations are Mr. Vu Dinh Duong, Ms. Vu Thi Cam, Ms. Vu Thi Thao, Ms. Nguyen Thi Kim Oanh, Ms. Ha Thuy Linh.
2. Transfer the case file to the Hanoi People's Court to re-examine the case at first instance in accordance with the provisions of law.

CONTENT OF PRECEDENT

“ The Court of First Instance should have carried out the judicial entrustment procedure as prescribed, collected evidence for Mr. Duong and Ms. Thao to clarify the time of their death, and if the two deceased had heirs, asked them about their views on resolving the case. Depending on each case, the new evidence should be used to resolve the case as prescribed. If no further evidence can be collected, Mr. Hung's request to receive inheritance according to the law must still be resolved. The inheritance of Mr. Duong and Ms. Thao will be temporarily handed over to those living in the country to manage so that their heirs will have the right to receive it according to the law, thus resolving the case completely.

As for those who are living in the part of the house that Ms. Tien sold, the obligation to provide their names is Ms. Tien's. The court of first instance's request for Mr. Hung to provide the names of these people is not the right subject. The court of first instance's decision that Mr. Hung could not provide the names and addresses of Mr. Duong's children, Ms. Thao, the person who bought the house from Ms. Oanh to suspend the settlement of the case is incorrect. The court of appeal should have annulled the first instance decision to re-settle the case, but it upheld the first instance decision is incorrect."