đá bóng trực tiếpCassation judgment No. 143/2013/DS-GDT dated november 13, 2013 regarding dispute over gift deed for land use right

đá bóng trực tiếp SUPREME PEOPLE’S COURT

CASSATION JUDGMENT NO. 143/2013/DS-GDT DATED NOVEMBER 13, 2013 REGARDING DISPUTE OVER GIFT DEED FOR LAND USE RIGHT

...

On November 13, 2013, đá bóng trực tiếp cassation trial was conducted at đá bóng trực tiếp office of đá bóng trực tiếp Supreme People’s Court to hear đá bóng trực tiếp case of dispute over gift deed for land use right between:

Petitioner:Mrs. Van Anh Muoi, born in 1955; residing at No. 4 Le Van Huu, Ben Nghe ward, district 1, Ho Chi Minh City; she authorizes Mr. Dinh Thanh Tam, born in 1979; residing at No. 16/8 Tay A, Dong Hoa commune, Di An district, Binh Duong province to act on her behalf (đá bóng trực tiếp letter of authorization dated December 24, 2010).

Respondent:Mrs. Van Anh Kim (Van Kim Anh, Mrs. Van Anh Muoi’s sister), born in 1954; residing at Canada (address: 359 1^stStreet 1 Brandon. R7A2W6 Mini ToBa. Canada); she authorizes Mr. Nguyen Hoang Lap, born in 1974; residing at 644A, zone 4, An Phu ward, district 2, Ho Chi Minh City to act on her behalf (letter of authorization dated June 6, 2010 and consular legalized on August 30, 2010 of Vietnamese Embassy in Canada).

Persons with related interests and obligations:Mr. Nguyen Thanh Binh, born in 1950 (Mrs. Kim’s husband); residing at No. 4 Le Van Huu, Ben Nghe ward, district 1, Ho Chi Minh City.

FINDING THAT

Representation of đá bóng trực tiếp petitioner Mrs. Van Anh Muoi (represented by Mr. Dinh Thanh Tam as authorized representative) in đá bóng trực tiếp petition filed on March 9, 2010 and in đá bóng trực tiếp course of proceedings:

On May 15, 2008, Mrs. Van Anh Muoi signed a gift deed for gifting Mrs. Van Anh Kim (Mrs. Muoi’s sister) đá bóng trực tiếp house and land at No. 04 Le Van Huu, Ben Nghe ward, district 1, Ho Chi Minh City (hereinafter referred to as đá bóng trực tiếp house No. 04 Le Van Huu), đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed was notarized at đá bóng trực tiếp Public Notary Office No. 3 of Ho Chi Minh City. Mrs. Muoi gifted this house to Mrs. Kim because at that time Mrs. Muoi suffered a fatal disease, đá bóng trực tiếp doctor did not expect her to last out, Mrs. Muoi has no husband or child; at that time, Mrs. Kim came back from Canada and told Mrs. Muoi to gift her đá bóng trực tiếp house for prevention of possible risks, if Mrs. Muoi cannot survive đá bóng trực tiếp deadly disease, Mrs. Kim would help her complete đá bóng trực tiếp paperwork; Mrs. Kim would only take care of đá bóng trực tiếp house on her behalf and promised not to transfer it to a third party, if Mrs. Muoi could survive đá bóng trực tiếp disease, they would cancel đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed. Putting đá bóng trực tiếp trust in Mrs. Kim, Mrs. Muoi signed đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed for gifting đá bóng trực tiếp house No. 04 Le Van Huu to Mrs. Kim. When signing đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed, Mrs. Muoi was not sound in mind. Her purpose for gifting đá bóng trực tiếp house No. 04 Le Van Huu was that if Mrs. Muoi passed away, đá bóng trực tiếp house would be distributed to her siblings. Mrs. Muoi did not know that Mrs. Kim transferred ownership of đá bóng trực tiếp house to Mrs. Kim until Mr. Nguyen Thanh Binh (Mrs. Kim’s husband) refused to let Mrs. Muoi stay in đá bóng trực tiếp house No. 04 Le Van Huu.

Thus, Mrs. Muoi claims cancellation of đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed associated with đá bóng trực tiếp house No. 04 Le Van Huu.

Representation of đá bóng trực tiếp respondent, Mrs. Van Anh Kim (authorized by Mr. Nguyen Hoang Lap):

đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed for gifting đá bóng trực tiếp house No. 04 Le Van Huu to Mrs. Kim was voluntarily signed by Mrs. Muoi in her sound mind and in đá bóng trực tiếp witness of all siblings in đá bóng trực tiếp family. In fact, đá bóng trực tiếp house No. 04 Le Van Huu is đá bóng trực tiếp property left to Mrs. Kim by their parents, Mrs. Muoi is entitled to own a piece of land in Thu Duc district. So, when đá bóng trực tiếp state allows an oversea Vietnamese to own đá bóng trực tiếp house and land use right, Mrs. Muoi transferred ownership of đá bóng trực tiếp house No. 04 Le Van Huu to Mrs. Kim.  Mrs. Kim was granted đá bóng trực tiếp certificate of house ownership (registration of change of house ownership) dated June 4, 2008. Hence, Mrs. Kim rejects đá bóng trực tiếp claim of Mrs. Muoi.

Representation of person with relevant rights and obligations, Mr. Nguyen Thanh Binh (Mr. Kim’s husband): đá bóng trực tiếp house No. 04 Le Van Huu is đá bóng trực tiếp private property of Mrs. Kim, he gives no opinion about this housing dispute.

In đá bóng trực tiếp First Instance Civil Judgment No. 762/2011/DS-ST dated June 1, 2011, đá bóng trực tiếp People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City judged:

Reject đá bóng trực tiếp claim of Mrs. Van Anh Muoi for canceling đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed for land use right (with property thereon) in đá bóng trực tiếp parcel No. 18, đá bóng trực tiếp map No. 17 at 04 Le Van Huu, Ben Nghe ward, district 1, Ho Chi Minh City between đá bóng trực tiếp donor, Mrs. Van Anh Muoi, and đá bóng trực tiếp donee, Mrs. Van Anh Kim (Van Kim Anh), notarization No. 13184 on May 15, 2008 by Public Notary Office No. 3 of Ho Chi Minh City.

In addition, đá bóng trực tiếp Court of First Instance decided đá bóng trực tiếp court fee and announced đá bóng trực tiếp right to appeal of đá bóng trực tiếp litigants.

On June 10, 2011, Mrs. Van Anh Muoi made an appeal against đá bóng trực tiếp decision of đá bóng trực tiếp Court of First Instance.

In đá bóng trực tiếp Appellate Civil Judgment No. 29/2011/DS-PT dated November 9, 2011, đá bóng trực tiếp Court of Appeal of People’s Supreme Court in Ho Chi Minh City corrected đá bóng trực tiếp First Instance Judgment as follows:

Declare đá bóng trực tiếp civil transaction - đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed for land use right (with property thereon) in đá bóng trực tiếp parcel No. 18, đá bóng trực tiếp map No. 17 at 04 Le Van Huu, Ben Nghe ward, district 1, Ho Chi Minh City between đá bóng trực tiếp donor, Mrs. Van Anh Muoi, and đá bóng trực tiếp donee, Mrs. Van Anh Kim (Van Kim Anh), notarization No. 13184 on May 15, 2008 by Public Notary Office No. 3 of Ho Chi Minh City null and void.

Mrs. Van Anh Muoi is obliged to register land use right (with property thereon) with đá bóng trực tiếp competent authority as per đá bóng trực tiếp land law.

Mrs. Van Anh Muoi is obliged to reimburse a half of đá bóng trực tiếp registration fee (also known as stamp duty) to Mrs. Van Anh Kim (Van Kim Anh) of VND 11,871,550.

In addition, đá bóng trực tiếp Court of Appeal also decided đá bóng trực tiếp court fee.

After appellate trial, Mr. Nguyen Hoang Lap (authorized by Mrs. Van Anh Kim) requests to review đá bóng trực tiếp Appellate Judgment under cassation procedure.

In đá bóng trực tiếp Decision No. 27/QD-KNGDT-V5 dated April 10, 2012, đá bóng trực tiếp Chief Procurator of đá bóng trực tiếp Supreme People’s Court appealed đá bóng trực tiếp Appellate Judgment No. 29/2011/DS-PT dated November 9, 2011 of đá bóng trực tiếp Appellate Court of đá bóng trực tiếp Supreme People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City and requested đá bóng trực tiếp Council of Judges of đá bóng trực tiếp Supreme People’s Court in charge of cassation trial to quash đá bóng trực tiếp above Appellate Judgment and đá bóng trực tiếp First Instance Judgment No. 762/2011/DSST dated June 1, 2011 of People’s Court of Dong Nai City, remand đá bóng trực tiếp case back to People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City for re-conducting đá bóng trực tiếp first instance trial as per đá bóng trực tiếp law with đá bóng trực tiếp following judgment:

đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed for land use right (with property thereon) in đá bóng trực tiếp parcel No. 18, đá bóng trực tiếp map No. 17 at 04 Le Van Huu, Ben Nghe ward, district 1, Ho Chi Minh City between đá bóng trực tiếp donor, Mrs. Van Anh Muoi, and đá bóng trực tiếp donee, Mrs. Van Anh Kim (Van Kim Anh) was made with notarization No. 13184 on May 15, 2008 by Public Notary Office No. 3 of Ho Chi Minh City. On June 4, 2008, Mrs. Van Anh Kim (Van Anh Kim) had her name included in đá bóng trực tiếp certificate of land use right. Mrs. Muoi claims that when signing đá bóng trực tiếp said gift deed, she was not in sound mind and she did not know that đá bóng trực tiếp house ownership was transferred to Mrs. Kim. Now, Mrs. Muoi claims cancellation of đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed for gifting đá bóng trực tiếp house and land at 4 Le Van Huu, Ben Nghe ward, district 1, Ho Chi Minh City to Mrs. Kim.

Deeming that Mrs. Muoi, when signing đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed, had full legal capacity and there is  no evidence that Mrs. Muoi was not in sound mind, was coerced or deceived; đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed was made at đá bóng trực tiếp Public Notary Office No. 3 of Ho Chi Minh City on their voluntary basis.  So, in terms of legal aspect, this gift deed is considered lawful. However, Mrs. Kim is an oversea Vietnamese (Canada), was granted đá bóng trực tiếp Visa Exemption Certificate No. AR0204833 on May 7, 2007 by Immigration Administration and had been granted multiple entries to Vietnam until July 20, 2012 and Mrs. Kim had registered temporary residence at đá bóng trực tiếp house No. 04 Le Van Huu, Ben Nghe ward, district 1, Ho Chi Minh City from May 4, 2008 to May 27, 2008, from February 10, 2009 to March 10, 2009, from June 23, 2009 to July 20, 2009 for đá bóng trực tiếp period of under 3 months. In consideration of Clause 1 Article 126 of đá bóng trực tiếp Law on đá bóng trực tiếp amendments to đá bóng trực tiếpLuật sửa đổi Điều“an overseas Vietnamese specified below and granted residence in Vietnam for at least 3 months is entitled to own a house to meet đá bóng trực tiếp her dwelling need and family members in Vietnam, although Mrs. Kim is not eligible for owning đá bóng trực tiếp house ownership in Vietnam, đá bóng trực tiếp People’s Committee of district 1 still permitted to putting đá bóng trực tiếp house ownership in her name based on đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed for đá bóng trực tiếp property (with house thereon), it was an improper decision. It was necessary for đá bóng trực tiếp Court of First Instance and đá bóng trực tiếp Court of Appeal, pursuant to Point b Clause 2 Article 121 of đá bóng trực tiếp Law on đá bóng trực tiếp amendments “…In case of gift or inheritance to entities ineligible for house ownership in Vietnam, they shall only be entitled to receive value of đá bóng trực tiếp house associated with đá bóng trực tiếp land use right”, to let Mrs. Kim receive đá bóng trực tiếp value of đá bóng trực tiếp above-mentioned house and land, and propose đá bóng trực tiếp People’s Committee of district 1 to revoke đá bóng trực tiếp land use right certificate and cancel đá bóng trực tiếp title of Mrs. Van Anh Kim. đá bóng trực tiếp Court of First Instance decided rejecting đá bóng trực tiếp lawsuit petition of Mrs. Muoi for cancellation of đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed for land use right (with property thereon) between Mrs. Muoi and Mrs. Kim; đá bóng trực tiếp Court of Appeal corrected First Instance Judgment and declared đá bóng trực tiếp civil transaction in question null and void. These decisions were wrong and did not ensure đá bóng trực tiếp interests of đá bóng trực tiếp litigants.

At đá bóng trực tiếp cassation court hearing, đá bóng trực tiếp representative of đá bóng trực tiếp Supreme People’s Procuracy requests đá bóng trực tiếp Council of Judges of đá bóng trực tiếp Supreme People’s Court to accept đá bóng trực tiếp Appeal of đá bóng trực tiếp Chief Procurator of đá bóng trực tiếp Supreme People’s Court.

CONSIDERING THAT

On May 15, 2008, at đá bóng trực tiếp Public Notary Office No. 3 of Ho Chi Minh City, Mrs. Van Anh Muoi made a gift deed for land use right (with property thereon) at No. 04 Le Van Huu, Ben Nghe ward, district 1, Ho Chi Minh City in favor of Mrs. Van Anh Kim and on June 4, 2008, Mrs. Kim was granted land use right certificate (with property thereon) at No. 4 Le Van Huu.

At đá bóng trực tiếp time when Mrs. Muoi made đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed for gifting land use right (with property thereon) to Mrs. Kim (May 15, 2008) at No. 04 Le Van Huu and at đá bóng trực tiếp time when Mrs. Kim was granted đá bóng trực tiếp land use right certificate (with property thereon) at No. 04 Le Van Huu (June 4, 2008), Article 126 of đá bóng trực tiếpđá bóng trực tiếpand Article 121 of đá bóng trực tiếptrực tiếp bóng đáhas not been amended in đá bóng trực tiếp Law No. 34/2009/QH12 dated June 8, 2009 of đá bóng trực tiếp Law on đá bóng trực tiếp amendments to Article 126 of đá bóng trực tiếp Law on Housing and Article 121 of đá bóng trực tiếp Law on Land;Decree No. 90/2006/ND-CPdated September 6, 2006 on guidelines for đá bóng trực tiếp Law on Housing in force and has not been superseded bytrực tiếp bóng đá euro hômdated June 23, 2010 on guidelines for đá bóng trực tiếp Law on Housing.

Article 126 of đá bóng trực tiếp Law on Housing 2005 stipulates “1. Overseas Vietnamese returning to Vietnam for long-term investment, being persons with merits of  making  contributions  to  đá bóng trực tiếp  country,  cultural  activists,  scientists  wishing  to  conduct  regular activities  in  Vietnam  to  serve  đá bóng trực tiếp  cause  of  national  construction,  persons  permitted  to  lead  a stable life in Vietnam and other subjects defined by đá bóng trực tiếp National Assembly Standing Committee, may own houses in Vietnam. 2. Overseas Vietnamese other than those defined in Clause 1 of this Article, who have returned to Vietnam for stay for six or more months may each own a single house or an apartment”; Point a Clause 1 Article 126 of đá bóng trực tiếp Law on Land 2003 stipulates that overseas Vietnamese returning to Vietnam for long-term investment wishing to have a house during their investment duration in Vietnam are eligible of buying houses associated with residential land use right in Vietnam; Clause 4 Article 65 of Decree No. 90/2006/ND-CP dated September 6, 2006 stipulates: "Overseas Vietnamese mentioned below may purchase, be donated with, exchange or inherit houses like domestic Vietnamese, (a) Overseas Vietnamese who return to Vietnam for long-term investment and directly carry out investment activities under đá bóng trực tiếp provisions of đá bóng trực tiếpxem bóng đá trựcand are granted đá bóng trực tiếp investment certificates.” and Clause 5 of this Article stipulates that “Overseas Vietnamese other than đá bóng trực tiếp subjects defined in Clause 4 of this Article, who have returned to Vietnam and resided for đá bóng trực tiếp permitted duration of six months or more, may own a single house or an apartment during their residence in Vietnam.”

Meanwhile, Mrs. Kim is an overseas Vietnamese (Canada) and she is a member of An Cat Co., Ltd according to đá bóng trực tiếp business registration certificate of multiple-member limited liability company No. 4102039544 issued by đá bóng trực tiếp Department of Planning and Investment of Ho Chi Minh City to An Cat Co., Ltd, with initial registration on May 18, 2006 and đá bóng trực tiếp third registration on August 16, 2007. However, đá bóng trực tiếp Official Dispatch No. 9057 dated November 8, 2011 of đá bóng trực tiếp Department of Planning and Investment of Ho Chi Minh City states: “Business registration certificate issued by Business Registration Department affiliated to đá bóng trực tiếp Department of Planning and Investment of Ho Chi Minh City with đá bóng trực tiếp type of business entities: limited liability company, joint-stock company, sole proprietorship, etc. and đá bóng trực tiếp enterprise registration certificate is not đá bóng trực tiếp investment certificate” and in đá bóng trực tiếp Official Dispatch No. 8244/BKHDT-PC dated October 23, 2013, đá bóng trực tiếp Ministry of Planning and Investment, đá bóng trực tiếp Ministry of Planning and Investment replies đá bóng trực tiếp People’s Supreme Procuracy that đá bóng trực tiếp business registration certificate to An Cat Co., Ltd was issued in accordance withLaw on Enterprises 1999and đá bóng trực tiếpLaw on Domestic Investment Promotion, amended in 1998, not as prescribed in đá bóng trực tiếp Law on Investment (which has not entered into force at that time). Pursuant to Law on Enterprises 1998 and đá bóng trực tiếp Law on Domestic Investment Promotion “đá bóng trực tiếp business registration certification is not considered as đá bóng trực tiếp investment license or investment certificate”. Alternatively, Mrs. Kim fails to present đá bóng trực tiếp proof that An Cat Co., Ltd had an investment project as prescribed in đá bóng trực tiếp Law on Domestic Investment Promotion (amended in 1998) and An Cat Co., Ltd was not issued with đá bóng trực tiếp “certificate of investment incentives” by đá bóng trực tiếp competent authority in accordance with đá bóng trực tiếp Law on Domestic Investment Promotion.

Moreover, according to đá bóng trực tiếp Visa Exemption Certificate issued to Mrs. Kim on May 7, 2008 by đá bóng trực tiếp Immigration Administration, Mrs. Kim were granted multiple entries until August 26, 2012, each entry was eligible for temporary residence of not exceeding 90 days.

Thus, at đá bóng trực tiếp time when Mrs. Muoi made đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed for gifting đá bóng trực tiếp land use right (with property thereon) to Mrs. Kim at 04 Le Van Huu and when Mrs. Kim was granted đá bóng trực tiếp land use right certificate (with property thereon) at 04 Le Van Huu, Mrs. Kim were both ineligible for owning a house in Vietnam (Mrs. Kim was not issued with an investment license or investment certificate in accordance with investment law, Mrs. Kim was only entitled to reside in Vietnam for up to 90 days, not 6 months or longer).

Therefore, đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed for land use right (with property thereon) at 04 Le Van Huu between Mrs. Muoi and Mrs. Kim is null and void. Such voidance has been caused by faults on both parties. When Mrs. Muoi gifted Mrs. Kim đá bóng trực tiếp land use right (with property thereon) at 04 Le Van Huu, Mrs. Muoi did not receive any sum of money or other financial interests from Mrs. Kim and Mrs. Kim was not required to perform any financial interest-related obligation for Mrs. Muoi (đá bóng trực tiếp said gift deed is of non-compensatory nature but only in favor of đá bóng trực tiếp donee, Mrs. Kim). However, Mrs. Kim paid đá bóng trực tiếp stamp duty to enable đá bóng trực tiếp land use right certificate to be issued and đá bóng trực tiếp faults resulting in null and void deed. Such voidance has been caused by faults on both Mrs. Kim and Mrs. Muoi. So, Mrs. Muoi has to compensate Mrs. Kim a half of đá bóng trực tiếp stamp duty.

Therefore, đá bóng trực tiếp Court of Appeal was grounded when declaring đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed for land use right (with property thereon) at 04 Le Van Huu between Mrs. Muoi and Mrs. Kim null and voice and compelling Mrs. Muoi to reimburse Mrs. Kim a half of đá bóng trực tiếp stamp duty. Thus, there is no justifiable ground and it is unnecessary to review and retry đá bóng trực tiếp case.

According to facts and matters, pursuant to Clause 3 Article 291, Clause 1 Article 297 of đá bóng trực tiếplịch trực tiếp bóng đá(amended by đá bóng trực tiếpBộ luật tố tụng vtv2dated March 29, 2011 of đá bóng trực tiếp National Assembly);

HEREBY DECIDES

Do not accept đá bóng trực tiếp Appeal No. 27/ỌĐ-KNGDT-V5 dated April 10, 2012 of đá bóng trực tiếp Chief Procurator of đá bóng trực tiếp People’s Supreme Procuracy; uphold đá bóng trực tiếp Appellate Civil Judgment No. 29/2011/DS-PT dated November 9, 2011 of đá bóng trực tiếp Court of Appeal of đá bóng trực tiếp Supreme People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City regarding đá bóng trực tiếp case “dispute over gift deed for land use right” between đá bóng trực tiếp petitioner, Mrs. Van Anh Muoi, and đá bóng trực tiếp respondent, Mrs. Van Anh Kim; person with relevant rights and obligations, Mr. Nguyen Thanh Binh.

CONTENTS PROPOSED TO BE RECOGNIZED AS PRECEDENT

đá bóng trực tiếp Cassation Decision indicates đá bóng trực tiếp question of law which is a valid guide for subsequent similar cases:

In a gift deed for real estate which đá bóng trực tiếp donee is not eligible for owning a house in Vietnam, such gift deed shall be declared null and void; đá bóng trực tiếp faults resulting in such voidance rest with both parties.

In particular, đá bóng trực tiếp Council of Judges of đá bóng trực tiếp Supreme People’s Court judged:

“At đá bóng trực tiếp time when Mrs. Muoi made đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed for gifting đá bóng trực tiếp land use right (with property thereon) to Mrs. Kim at 04 Le Van Huu and when Mrs. Kim was granted đá bóng trực tiếp land use right certificate (with property thereon) at 04 Le Van Huu, Mrs. Kim were both ineligible for owning a house in Vietnam (Mrs. Kim was not issued with an investment license or investment certificate in accordance with investment law, Mrs. Kim was only entitled to reside in Vietnam for up to 90 days, not 6 months or longer).

Therefore, đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed for land use right (with property thereon) at 04 Le Van Huu between Mrs. Muoi and Mrs. Kim is null and void. Such voidance has been caused by faults on both parties. When Mrs. Muoi gifted Mrs. Kim đá bóng trực tiếp land use right (with property thereon) at 04 Le Van Huu, Mrs. Muoi did not receive any sum of money or other financial interests from Mrs. Kim and Mrs. Kim was not required to perform any financial interest-related obligation for Mrs. Muoi (đá bóng trực tiếp said gift deed is of a non-compensatory nature but only in favor of đá bóng trực tiếp donee, Mrs. Kim). However, Mrs. Kim paid đá bóng trực tiếp stamp duty to enable đá bóng trực tiếp land use right certificate to be issued and đá bóng trực tiếp faults resulting in null and void deed. Such voidance has been caused by faults on both Mrs. Kim and Mrs. Muoi. So, Mrs. Muoi has to compensate Mrs. Kim a half of đá bóng trực tiếp stamp duty.

Therefore, đá bóng trực tiếp Court of Appeal was grounded when declaring đá bóng trực tiếp gift deed for land use right (with property thereon) at 04 Le Van Huu between Mrs. Muoi and Mrs. Kim null and voice and compelling Mrs. Muoi to reimburse Mrs. Kim a half of đá bóng trực tiếp stamp duty. Thus, there is no justifiable ground and it is unnecessary to review and retry đá bóng trực tiếp case.