Precedent No. 06/2016/AL on the Dispute over Inheritance in Vietnam

Precedent No. 06/2016/AL, adopted by the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court on April 6, 2016, and promulgated pursuant to Decision No. 220/QD-CA dated April 6, 2016, issued by the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court.

1. Definition of a Precedent

A precedent refers to the legal reasoning and rulings contained in a legally effective judgment or decision of a court regarding a specific case, selected by the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court and promulgated by the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court as a precedent for courts to study and apply in adjudication. (Article 1, Resolution No. 04/2019/NQ-HDTP)

A precedent must meet the following criteria:

• It clarifies legal provisions subject to differing interpretations, provides analysis and explanation of legal issues and events, and indicates principles, guidelines for adjudication, or applicable legal norms in a specific case, or reflects fairness in matters not specifically regulated by law;
• It is normative;
• It provides guidance for the uniform application of law in adjudication.

2. Precedent No. 06/2016/AL on the Dispute over Inheritance in Vietnam

2.1. Source of the Precedent

Cassation Decision No. 100/2013/GDT-DS dated August 12, 2013, issued by the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court regarding the “Dispute over Inheritance” case in Hanoi, between the plaintiff, Mr. Vu Dinh Hung, and the defendants, Ms. Vu Thi Tien (also known as Hien) and Ms. Vu Thi Hau; with Mr. Vu Dinh Duong, Ms. Vu Thi Cam, Ms. Vu Thi Thao, Ms. Nguyen Thi Kim Oanh, and Ms. Ha Thuy Linh as persons with related rights and obligations.

2.2. Summary of Precedent No. 06/2016/AL

In an inheritance dispute involving heirs residing overseas, if the court has conducted judicial entrustment and collected evidence in accordance with the law but is unable to ascertain the addresses of those heirs, the court shall still address the plaintiff’s claim. If the inheritance property, the line of heirs, and the absence of a will from the deceased are established, the court shall divide the inheritance for the plaintiff as prescribed by law. The inheritance share of absent heirs whose addresses cannot be confirmed shall be temporarily entrusted to those residing in Vietnam for management, to be later transferred to the absent heirs.

Relevant legal provisions:

• Article 93; Subpoint d, Clause 1, Article 168 of the Civil Procedure Code of Vietnam 2004;
• Articles 676 and 685 of the Civil Code of Vietnam 2005.

Keywords of the precedent:

“Dispute over inheritance property”; “Heirs overseas with unknown addresses”; “Judicial entrustment”; “Division of inheritance”; “Management of inheritance.”

CASE DETAILS

In the lawsuit filed in July 1993, the plaintiff, Mr. Vu Dinh Hung, stated:

His parents, Mr. Vu Dinh Quang and Ms. Nguyen Thi Thenh, had six children: Mr. Vu Dinh Duong, Ms. Vu Thi Cam, Ms. Vu Thi Thao, Mr. Vu Dinh Hung, Ms. Vu Thi Tien (also known as Hien), and Ms. Vu Thi Hau. Mr. Quang and Ms. Thenh created the house at No. 66, Dong Xuan Street, Hoan Kiem District, Hanoi, with an area of 123 m². In 1979, Mr. Quang died without a will, and the house was occupied by Ms. Thenh and three children: Mr. Hung, Ms. Hau, and Ms. Tien; Mr. Duong, Ms. Thao, and Ms. Cam had emigrated abroad. At a family meeting on October 28, 1982, Ms. Thenh, Ms. Tien, and Ms. Hau agreed to temporarily divide the house into three parts for their use. In 1987, Ms. Thenh died. In 1989, Ms. Tien secretly sold her allocated portion to Ms. Nguyen Thi Kim Oanh. After Mr. Hung filed a lawsuit to divide the inheritance, on October 31, 1993, Ms. Hau sold her allocated portion to Ms. Ha Thuy Linh. Mr. Hung deemed these sales invalid. He stated that his three siblings abroad (Mr. Duong, Ms. Cam, and Ms. Thao) had authorized him to receive their inheritance shares and requested the division of his parents’ inheritance property in accordance with the law.

Mr. Hung submitted photocopies of powers of attorney dated March 3, 1992, from Mr. Vu Dinh Duong; May 1, 1993, from Ms. Vu Thi Cam; and October 28, 1991, from Ms. Vu Thi Thao, all authorizing him to manage their one-sixth shares of the house at No. 66, Dong Xuan Street. After filing the lawsuit, he provided additional documents: an “Inheritance Transfer Deed” dated April 25, 1995, from Mr. Vu Dinh Duong; an “Inheritance Transfer Deed” dated May 10, 1995, from Ms. Vu Thi Cam; and an “Inheritance Grant Deed” from Ms. Vu Thi Thao, all executed abroad, stating that their parents left the house to their six children, but Ms. Tien and Ms. Hau’s sale of their portions violated their mother’s instructions (not to sell or allow outsiders to reside). Mr. Duong, Ms. Thao, and Ms. Cam granted Mr. Hung their one-sixth shares to maintain ancestral worship and provide a place for their overseas families to visit, requesting he receive the inheritance in kind (all documents were photocopies).

The defendants stated:

Ms. Vu Thi Tien confirmed the family relationships and the origin of the house at No. 66, Dong Xuan Street, as stated by Mr. Hung. In 1989, she sold her allocated portion to Ms. Oanh, handed over the house, and completed the sale procedures at the Hanoi Housing Authority. After moving in, Ms. Oanh agreed with Mr. Hung and Ms. Hau to swap certain parts of the house for convenience. Due to Mr. Hung’s complaint, the Housing Authority revoked the sale documents between her and Ms. Oanh. Ms. Hau also sold her portion to another party. She stated that Ms. Thenh had given money to the three siblings abroad, so they had no claims to the house. Having sold her portion to Ms. Oanh, she bore no further responsibility.

Ms. Vu Thi Hau confirmed the family relationships, the house’s origin, its division, and Ms. Tien’s sale, as stated by Ms. Tien. She claimed she informed her siblings abroad before selling, and they consented. She requested her share be allocated to the portion sold to Ms. Linh and her husband, Mr. Khoi.

Persons with related rights and obligations stated:

Ms. Ha Thuy Linh and her husband, Mr. Hoang Manh Khoi, stated: When purchasing the house, Ms. Hau showed them the family meeting minutes, leading them to agree to the purchase. They paid in full, moved in, and have resided there since, requesting legalization of the portion bought from Ms. Hau.

Ms. Nguyen Thi Kim Oanh stated: On October 18, 1992, she bought Ms. Tien’s allocated portion for 30,000,000 VND, with the transaction approved by the authorities. After purchasing, she moved in and agreed with Mr. Hung to swap certain areas for convenience, requesting recognition of her purchase contract with Ms. Tien.

At First-Instance Civil Judgment No. 20/DSST dated May 23, 1995, the Hanoi City People’s Court accepted the inheritance division request of Mr. Hung, Mr. Duong, Ms. Cam, and Ms. Thao, represented by Mr. Hung, for Mr. Quang and Ms. Thenh’s estate. It partially recognized Ms. Thenh’s will dated October 28, 1982, valued the inheritance at 1,228,151,520 VND, and divided it in kind among Mr. Hung, Ms. Hau, and Ms. Tien. The sales by Ms. Tien and Ms. Hau to Ms. Oanh and Ms. Linh were deemed compliant with State regulations.

Ms. Tien appealed, requesting a review of the inheritance area calculation. Mr. Hung appealed, claiming the court’s ruling was biased.

At Appellate Civil Judgment No. 115 dated October 10, 1995, the Appellate Court of the Supreme People’s Court in Hanoi annulled the first-instance judgment and remanded the case to the Hanoi City People’s Court for re-adjudication at first instance.

At First-Instance Civil Judgment No. 50/DSST dated September 11, 1996, the Hanoi City People’s Court accepted the inheritance division request of Mr. Hung, Mr. Duong, Ms. Cam, and Ms. Thao, represented by Mr. Hung, for Mr. Quang and Ms. Thenh’s estate; acknowledged the voluntary transfer of inheritance shares by Mr. Duong, Ms. Cam, and Ms. Thao to Mr. Hung; and divided the property in kind among Mr. Hung, Ms. Hau, and Ms. Tien (each receiving one-third of the shop and rear house). Ms. Hau and Ms. Tien were ordered to pay Mr. Hung the value difference (Ms. Hau: 156,824,381 VND; Ms. Tien: 140,774,106 VND). The sales by Ms. Tien and Ms. Hau to Ms. Oanh and Ms. Linh were deemed unlawful.

Mr. Hung appealed.

In Decision No. 82/TDC dated July 15, 1997, the Appellate Court of the Supreme People’s Court in Hanoi suspended the case.

Following Resolution No. 1037/2006/NQ-UBTVQH11 dated July 27, 2006, of the National Assembly Standing Committee on civil transactions involving housing established before July 1, 1991, with participation of Vietnamese residing abroad, the Appellate Court resumed the case.

At Appellate Civil Judgment No. 142/2007/DSPT dated July 3, 2007, the Appellate Court annulled the first-instance judgment and remanded the case to the Hanoi City People’s Court for re-adjudication, noting: The lawsuit was filed and signed only by Mr. Hung; the powers of attorney from Mr. Duong, Ms. Thao, and Ms. Cam did not explicitly authorize filing an inheritance claim (except Ms. Thao’s); the parties acknowledged Mr. Duong and Ms. Thao’s deaths, requiring verification and inclusion of their heirs; and the house and land needed revaluation.

Upon re-adjudication, the parties stated Mr. Duong and Ms. Thao died around 2002. The first-instance court requested Mr. Hung to provide death certificates for Mr. Duong and Ms. Thao and amend the lawsuit per Clause 2, Article 164 of the Civil Procedure Code (names, addresses, nationalities of Mr. Duong and Ms. Thao’s children; names and addresses of occupants of the disputed property), but Mr. Hung could not comply.

In Decision No. 04/2008/QDST-DS dated January 17, 2008, the Hanoi City People’s Court suspended the case and refunded Mr. Hung’s court fee advance.

On January 29, 2008, Mr. Hung appealed, arguing the suspension was incorrect.

In Decision No. 168/2008/DS-QDPT dated September 4, 2008, the Appellate Court accepted Mr. Hung’s appeal, annulling the first-instance decision, reasoning that applying Clause 2, Article 192 to suspend the case was incorrect and deprived the plaintiff of his right to sue.

Upon re-adjudication, the Hanoi City People’s Court requested Mr. Hung to provide the names, ages, and addresses of Mr. Duong and Ms. Thao’s heirs; powers of attorney or inheritance waivers from them; and names and addresses of occupants of Ms. Oanh’s purchased portion. Mr. Hung could not provide these.

In Decision No. 54/DS-ST dated September 30, 2009, the Hanoi City People’s Court suspended the inheritance division case and returned the lawsuit and evidence to Mr. Hung.

Mr. Hung appealed.

In Decision No. 44/2010/QD-PT dated March 9, 2010, the Appellate Court upheld the first-instance decision.

Mr. Hung requested a cassation review.

In Protest Decision No. 35/2013/KN-DS dated January 22, 2013, the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court protested Decision No. 44/2010/QD-PT dated March 9, 2010, of the Appellate Court, proposing that the Judicial Council conduct a cassation review to annul the appellate decision and First-Instance Suspension Decision No. 54/2009/DS-ST dated September 30, 2009, of the Hanoi City People’s Court; and to remand the case to the Hanoi City People’s Court for re-adjudication at first instance in accordance with the law.

At the cassation hearing, the representative of the Supreme People’s Procuracy agreed with the Chief Justice’s protest.

The Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court determined:

The house at No. 66, Dong Xuan Street, Hoan Kiem District, Hanoi, was created by Mr. Vu Dinh Quang (deceased 1979) and Ms. Nguyen Thi Thenh (deceased 1987). Of their six children, three—Mr. Vu Dinh Duong, Ms. Vu Thi Cam, and Ms. Vu Thi Thao—resided abroad since 1979, while Mr. Vu Dinh Hung, Ms. Vu Thi Tien (Hien), and Ms. Vu Thi Hau remained in Vietnam. After Mr. Quang’s death, Ms. Thenh, Mr. Hung, Ms. Tien, and Ms. Hau managed the house. After Ms. Thenh’s death, Mr. Hung, Ms. Tien, and Ms. Hau divided the house into three parts for their use. On October 18, 1992, Ms. Tien sold her portion to Ms. Nguyen Thi Kim Oanh, and on October 31, 1993, Ms. Hau sold her portion to Ms. Ha Thuy Linh.

In 1993, Mr. Hung filed a lawsuit to divide the house and land inheritance according to the law. The case extended from 1993 to 1996 and was suspended at the appellate stage in 1997. It was resumed in 2007.

Before the suspension in 1997, Mr. Hung provided documents and powers of attorney from 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994 by Mr. Duong, Ms. Cam, and Ms. Thao, authorizing him to manage their inheritance shares in the house at No. 66, Dong Xuan Street. Later, he submitted 1995 documents from Mr. Duong, Ms. Thao, and Ms. Cam transferring their shares to him, bearing stamps and seals from their respective countries (Mr. Duong in the UK, Ms. Cam in France, Ms. Thao in the USA), though only as photocopies. The documents included the authors’ addresses. Upon resuming the case, Mr. Hung, Ms. Tien, and Ms. Hau stated Mr. Duong and Ms. Thao died around 2002; Mr. Hung confirmed Ms. Cam and Ms. Thao’s addresses remained unchanged, and he contacted Mr. Duong’s children without response (case file pages 376, 377, 382). The first-instance court required Mr. Hung to provide death certificates for Mr. Duong and Ms. Thao and their children’s names and addresses. Mr. Hung stated he could not comply and requested the court collect evidence to resolve the case (case file page 390). The case file contained the overseas heirs’ addresses, and requiring Mr. Hung to provide death certificates was unnecessary, as the three domestic parties confirmed Mr. Duong and Ms. Thao’s deaths. The first-instance court should have conducted judicial entrustment per regulations to collect evidence on Mr. Duong and Ms. Thao’s deaths and, if they had heirs, their positions on the case. Depending on new evidence, the case should be resolved accordingly. If no further evidence was obtained, the court should still address Mr. Hung’s inheritance claim, temporarily entrusting Mr. Duong and Ms. Thao’s shares to those in Vietnam for management, to be later claimed by their heirs, ensuring case resolution. For occupants of Ms. Tien’s sold portion, Ms. Tien was responsible for providing their details, not Mr. Hung. The first-instance court’s requirement for Mr. Hung to provide these was misdirected. Suspending the case due to Mr. Hung’s inability to provide Mr. Duong and Ms. Thao’s children’s details and Ms. Oanh’s buyers was incorrect. The appellate court should have annulled the first-instance decision for re-adjudication but erred in upholding it.

Additionally, per case documents, Mr. Hoang Manh Khoi’s statement on October 17, 2007 (case file page 373), and the “House Sale Deed” dated October 31, 1993 (case file page 18), Ms. Hau sold her portion to Ms. Ha Thuy Linh (wife of Mr. Hoang Manh Khoi). The first-instance and appellate decisions incorrectly referred to Ms. Nguyen Thi Thuy Linh, requiring correction.

For the foregoing reasons, pursuant to Clause 3, Article 297, and Article 299 of the Civil Procedure Code of Vietnam 2004;

DECISION

1. To annul Decision No. 44/2010/QD-PT dated March 9, 2010, of the Appellate Court of the Supreme People’s Court in Hanoi, and First-Instance Suspension Decision No. 54/2009/DS-ST dated September 30, 2009, of the Hanoi City People’s Court, regarding the inheritance dispute between the plaintiff, Mr. Vu Dinh Hung, the defendants, Ms. Vu Thi Tien and Ms. Vu Thi Hau, and persons with related rights and obligations, Mr. Vu Dinh Duong, Ms. Vu Thi Cam, Ms. Vu Thi Thao, Ms. Nguyen Thi Kim Oanh, and Ms. Ha Thuy Linh.

2. To remand the case file to the Hanoi City People’s Court for re-adjudication at first instance in accordance with the law.

CONTENT OF THE PRECEDENT

The first-instance court should have conducted judicial entrustment per regulations to collect evidence on Mr. Duong and Ms. Thao’s deaths and, if they had heirs, their positions on the case. Depending on new evidence, the case should be resolved accordingly. If no further evidence was obtained, the court should still address Mr. Hung’s inheritance claim, temporarily entrusting Mr. Duong and Ms. Thao’s shares to those in Vietnam for management, to be later claimed by their heirs, ensuring case resolution. For occupants of Ms. Tien’s sold portion, Ms. Tien was responsible for providing their details, not Mr. Hung. The first-instance court’s requirement for Mr. Hung to provide these was misdirected. Suspending the case due to Mr. Hung’s inability to provide Mr. Duong and Ms. Thao’s children’s details and Ms. Oanh’s buyers was incorrect. The appellate court should have annulled the first-instance decision for re-adjudication but erred in upholding it.