After more than 8 years of pursuing a lawsuit, Mr. Nam, 54 years old, faces having to accept a parcel of land that does not match the certificate issued to him. The effective judgment states he is entitled to manage and use 82 square meters of parcel 2609, while he purchased parcel 2632. However, parcel 2632 is currently managed and used by Mr. Dinh, along with a row of rental rooms.

Believing the ruling forces him to accept a parcel with a different location and area than the land he acquired, Mr. Nam has sent a petition to central judicial agencies, requesting a cassation review of the judgment and a temporary suspension of its enforcement.

According to Mr. Nam, the essence of the case is that a house built incorrectly according to a temporary permit became the basis for determining who owns which part of the land.

**Rental Rooms Discovered on Certified Land**

According to case files, in 2010, Mr. Nam acquired nearly 127 square meters of land, parcel 2632, in Dong Hoa Ward, formerly Di An Town, Binh Duong Province. A year later, he received a land use rights certificate. At that time, adjacent plots were vacant.

Living far from the land and later incapacitated by an accident, Mr. Nam did not regularly inspect his property. In 2018, when invited to determine land boundaries for a road expansion project, he discovered six rental rooms on the plot, managed by Mr. Dinh.

The row of rental rooms was built under a temporary permit issued in 2013 to the owner of parcel 2609, who later sold the land and rental rooms to Mr. Dinh. However, surveying results and cadastral records indicate the structure is on parcel 2632, registered in Mr. Nam's name.

Construction permit for the temporary house issued on parcel 2609. *Archived photo*

Unable to reach an agreement with Mr. Dinh on relocating the structure, Mr. Nam filed a lawsuit in 2019, demanding the demolition of the rental rooms and the return of his land.

During land acquisition for road expansion, authorities determined that the actual land use status of the two parties did not match the information on their certificates.

According to land acquisition records, more than 42 square meters of Mr. Nam's land was taken, leaving over 84 square meters of parcel 2632; Mr. Dinh had more than 41 square meters acquired, leaving 82 square meters of parcel 2609, which was vacant land. Compensation for the rental rooms was paid to Mr. Dinh. Both parties signed to confirm the current status map and compensation amounts.

**Mr. Dinh Claims Lawful Purchase**

Mr. Dinh refused to relocate the structure, asserting he lawfully acquired and used the land, and did not illegally occupy another's land.

According to Mr. Dinh, in 2016, he purchased parcel 2609, measuring 123 square meters, along with the row of rental rooms on it. The Di An Town Land Registration Office Branch registered the change of ownership to his name. Since then, he has used the land stably, with local authorities updating changes, issuing new house numbers, and managing the property.

Mr. Dinh argued that Mr. Nam's claim of the rental rooms being mistakenly built on his land was incorrect. He suggested the error occurred during parcel division and numbering on the certificate. Therefore, he requested competent agencies to re-issue a certificate consistent with the actual use status and adjust cadastral records.

In the lawsuit, Mr. Dinh filed a counter-claim, asking the court to annul Mr. Nam's certificate, annul the cadastral survey results, re-number the parcel, and revise the cadastral map.

Current status of parcel 2609 and the row of rental rooms located on parcel 2632. *Provided by party involved*

**Contradictory Rulings from Two Court Levels**

In 2023, the Binh Duong Provincial People's Court conducted the first instance trial, accepting Mr. Nam's request and ordering Mr. Dinh to return 84,6 square meters of parcel 2632. Mr. Nam was to pay Mr. Dinh 145 million VND, representing the value of assets on the land; after payment, Mr. Nam would be able to use the land and the rental rooms.

The trial panel stated that the construction permit and house number are not grounds to recognize land use rights for Mr. Dinh under Article 100 of the 2013 Land Law. A document from the Land Registration Office also confirmed Mr. Nam's parcel was adjacent to a concrete alley, consistent with the actual situation.

The court rejected Mr. Dinh's counter-claim to annul Mr. Nam's certificate and adjust cadastral records, noting that the issuance of the certificate and updates to changes were performed according to proper procedures; the location and boundaries of the parcels were stably established from the time of parcel division.

Mr. Dinh appealed the decision. In 2024, the Ho Chi Minh City High People's Court annulled the first instance judgment for retrial, stating that the first instance court had not fully collected evidence, had not clarified the actual location of the two parcels, the land handover by previous owners, and potential errors during parcel division and numbering.

By September 2025, the Ho Chi Minh City People's Court conducted the second first instance trial and issued a contradictory ruling. Accordingly, Mr. Nam was granted management and use of 82 square meters of parcel 2609, originally issued to Mr. Dinh, which was vacant land. Mr. Dinh was granted management and use of 84,6 square meters of parcel 2632, registered in Mr. Nam's name, along with the row of rental rooms on it.

Explaining the ruling, the court stated that Mr. Nam received vacant land when he acquired it, while Mr. Dinh purchased land with an existing rental property. The reversed parcel numbers on the documents were a mistake not stemming from either party's fault.

Consequently, the court recommended that competent agencies revoke the issued certificates and re-issue them to both parties according to the judgment's decision.

The court did not accept Mr. Dinh's counter-claim to annul the cadastral map, survey results, and order authorities to adjust parcel numbers and revise records. The trial panel stated that the location and area of the parcels were established since the time of previous owners, and both parties acquired the land based on these records.

However, the area and location of the parcels that the judgment declared each party owned were not consistent with the data on the legally issued certificate.

Survey results of Mr. Nam's parcel (top) and Mr. Dinh's parcel (bottom). *Photo from documents*

During the case resolution, the courts summoned the previous owner and the person who built the rental rooms and sold them to Mr. Dinh, but this individual did not provide testimony or opinions to the court.

Both Mr. Nam and Mr. Dinh appealed. In April 2026, the Appellate Court of the Supreme People's Court in Ho Chi Minh City rejected both parties' appeals, upholding the first instance judgment from 2025.

**Mr. Nam Argues Received Land Differs From Purchased Land**

After the judgment became effective, Mr. Nam stated that Land Registration Office Branch 24 required him to submit the original certificate to update records.

He worried this would force him to accept a parcel with a different location and area than the land he acquired and was issued a certificate for in 2011, with changes updated in 2021.

"The records are correct, the procedures are correct, and the boundaries are stable, yet the person with a certificate loses the exact parcel recorded in their legally issued certificate. So, does the real error lie in the cadastral records, or in the structure built on the wrong parcel since 2013?", Mr. Nam questioned.

According to Mr. Nam, a structure built incorrectly according to a temporary construction permit cannot override all cadastral records previously established by the State.

He stated that for more than 8 years since discovering the issue, he has been unable to directly manage, use, build on, or normally exploit the land for which he holds a certificate.

By Hai Duyen

* Defendant's name has been changed