This needs to be resolved definitively as soon as possible!

(Baonghean Newspaper) - Recently, Baonghean Newspaper received a complaint from Mr. Dang Dinh Trong, residing in Hamlet 15, Phuc Son Commune (Anh Son District). The complaint stated: Although the first-instance and appellate courts have declared the 2007 land transfer contract between him and Mr. Thai Ba Tien invalid, and he has filed a request for enforcement, the enforcement has been unsuccessful, and to this day, Mr. Tien still refuses to return the land to his family…

Mr. Tien's family built the structure on land belonging to Mr. Trong's family.

In his petition, Mr. Dang Dinh Trong stated: In 1991, his family was allocated 1.5 hectares of forest land in Hamlet 15, Phuc Son Commune, and was issued "Household Forest Land Register" No. 28 by the Anh Son District People's Committee on September 24, 1991. In 1993, he and his wife cut 1,000 square meters of the land.²Mr. Trọng lent land to Mr. Thái Bá Tiến's family with the agreement that Mr. Tiến would return the borrowed land when he acquired land elsewhere. In 2007, to facilitate Mr. Tiến's mortgage for a bank loan, Mr. Trọng prepared a land transfer document dated August 8, 2007, which was certified by the Hamlet 15 Committee and the People's Committee of Phúc Sơn Commune. This was merely a formality to help Mr. Tiến mortgage the land for a loan; in reality, Mr. Trọng's family did not sell the land or receive any money from Mr. Tiến's family. Upon learning that Mr. Tiến already owned land elsewhere, Mr. Trọng demanded the return of the borrowed land, but Mr. Tiến refused, claiming the land had already been sold and that a transfer document dated August 8, 2007. Mr. Trọng requests the court to declare the aforementioned land use rights transfer contract invalid.

According to Mr. Trong, after two levels of courts ruled the transfer contract invalid, ordering Mr. Tien's family to return the land to his family and pay Mr. Tien two sums of money as compensation for assets on the land, the enforcement agency attempted to forcibly seize the land again in September 2014 and on October 15, 2014, but both attempts were unsuccessful...

From Mr. Trong's statement, it was learned that at the first-instance trial on January 29, 2013, the Anh Son District People's Court issued Judgment No. 01/2013/DS-ST, stating: According to Articles 109, 122, and 233 of the Civil Code, Mr. Trong, Ms. Nhu, Mr. Tien, and Ms. Hong acted improperly when entering into the contract. The unauthorized transfer of land use rights, which are common property of the household, without the consent of the children, violates regulations on the right to dispose of valuable common property and the right of priority for co-owners to purchase, thus falling under the prohibition stipulated in Article 128 of the Civil Code. Therefore, the land use rights transfer contract dated August 8, 2007, between Mr. Trong, Ms. Nhu, and Mr. Tien, Ms. Hong is entirely invalid.

The judgment concluded: “Applying Articles 109, 122, 127, 128, 137, 217, and 223 of the Civil Code; and Article 105 of the Land Law, the court declares: The land use rights transfer contract dated August 8, 2007, between Mr. Dang Dinh Trong, Ms. Nguyen Thi Nhu, and Mr. Thai Ba Tien, Ms. Nguyen Thi Hong, is invalid. Mr. Thai Ba Tien and Ms. Nguyen Thi Hong are obligated to dismantle and relocate the factory (sawmill) to return the land to Mr. Dang Dinh Trong, Ms. Nguyen Thi Nhu, and their children, with an area of ​​976.75 m2 located in parcel 213 - map sheet 1 - Map 163, in Hamlet 15, Phuc Son Commune, Anh Son District. Mr. Trong and Ms. Nhu are granted ownership of the following assets: the permanent structures on the land and the trees planted on the land. Mr. Trong and Ms. Nhu are obligated to pay Mr. Tien and Ms. Hong the amount equivalent to the value of these assets.” The value of the permanent architectural structure located on the land is 189,626,018 VND, along with the value of the efforts in managing and enhancing the land use rights, which increases their value, amount to 30,000,000 VND. The total of these two amounts is 219,626,018 VND.

Subsequently, Mr. Thai Ba Tien and Ms. Nguyen Thi Hong filed an appeal, stating that the land sale between their family and Mr. Trong's family was documented in writing, confirmed by the local authorities, and was in accordance with the law. They argued that the amount of compensation ordered by the first-instance court was insufficient to reflect the family's efforts in living on the land. Therefore, they requested a retrial by the appellate court to ensure fairness for their family. Based on Mr. Tien's family's request, on August 9, 2013, the People's Court of Nghe An Province held an appellate trial. Judgment No. 37/2013/DSPT reiterated the decision, stating: "The land use rights transfer contract dated August 8, 2007, signed between Mr. Dang Dinh Trong, Ms. Nguyen Thi Nhu, and Mr. Thai Ba Tien, Ms. Nguyen Thi Hong, is entirely invalid." Unlike the initial judgment, the appellate judgment requires Mr. Trong's family to pay Mr. Tien's family both amounts totaling 249,626,018 VND.

After two levels of courts declared the land transfer contract between Mr. Trong and his wife and Mr. Tien and his wife invalid, Mr. Trong's family filed a request for enforcement of the judgment; however, the matter remains unresolved. Speaking with us, Mr. Nguyen Minh Thiep, Head of the Enforcement Department of Anh Son District, said: Due to the complex circumstances, the enforcement agency has had to temporarily suspend the process. Currently, Mr. Tien has submitted petitions to various authorities, including a request for judicial review, so the District Enforcement Steering Committee is postponing the process for six months. If there is no higher authority's opinion by March 2015, enforcement will proceed. The Steering Committee has informed Mr. Trong's family of this. Regarding the money Mr. Trong had paid, the enforcement agency has returned it to him.

According to Lawyer Nguyen Trong Hai - Head of Trong Hai & Associates Law Office: In 1991, Mr. Trong's family was granted 1.5 hectares of forest land. According to Article 108 of the 2005 Civil Code, this is the common property of the family. Any disposition of this valuable common property of the family must have the consent of all family members aged 15 and above. Therefore, the first-instance judgment No. 01/2013/DS-ST dated January 29, 2013, of the Anh Son District People's Court declaring the transfer contract dated August 8, 2007, invalid is in accordance with the law.

Appellate judgment No. 37/2013/DSPT of the People's Court of Nghe An province dated August 9, 2013, takes effect from the date of pronouncement. The parties are responsible for its execution. Based on the provisions of Article 286 of the 2004 Civil Procedure Code and Articles 48 and 49 of the 2008 Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement, the postponement or temporary suspension of the execution of an effective judgment or decision is carried out upon the request of the competent authority to appeal. In this case, the competent authority to appeal is the Chief Justice of the Supreme People's Court and the Chief Procurator of the Supreme People's Procuracy. Furthermore, the head of the civil judgment enforcement agency may issue a decision to postpone the execution of a civil judgment if the judgment creditor agrees to the postponement by the judgment debtor. This agreement must be in writing, clearly stating the postponement period and signed by all parties. The period for postponing the execution of a judgment at the request of the person authorized to appeal the judgment shall not exceed 3 months from the date of issuance of the written request for postponement of execution.

Thus, it can be seen that Mr. Dang Dinh Trong's complaint is well-founded. Therefore, the Anh Son District Enforcement Agency needs to review the procedures, sequence, and timeframe for enforcing the judgment, as well as base its decision on the actual situation, in order to resolve the matter definitively as soon as possible.

Through this incident, Mr. Trong should consider this a valuable lesson, because his decision to lend land for many years without question, followed by an illegal transfer, is the root cause of the subsequent negative consequences. The local authorities also need to learn from this experience regarding the verification of land transfer documents, which was one of the factors contributing to the incident.

Quang An