This morning, the Phu Tho Provincial People's Court is expected to reopen the inheritance dispute case between plaintiff Hue, 70 years old, and defendants Luc and Vien, her husband's two younger brothers. The trial was previously adjourned to clarify several conflicting points.

The disputed inheritance is a plot of nearly 9,000 square meters of land, originally reclaimed by Hue's parents-in-law in Song Lo District, former Vinh Phuc Province.

In 2006, after his wife passed away, the father-in-law drafted a will bequeathing all assets to his eldest son, Du (Hue's husband). This will was signed and confirmed by six children but was subsequently lost for 15 years.

During the period the will was missing, many legal changes occurred, altering the land management status.

In 2017, at the request of his siblings, Du organized a family meeting to divide the inheritance.

By 2019, the Song Lo District People's Committee had issued land use rights certificates (so do) for over 7,000 square meters to Luc's household and 1,500 square meters to Vien.

Conflict arises from memorial photo removed from altar

According to the plaintiff, the lawsuit is not intended to "dispute" the land with her brothers-in-law but merely to secure a place for her husband's worship.

Duy, Hue's son, stated that before his father's death from a serious illness, his greatest wish was to be buried and worshipped at their ancestral home.

Fulfilling his father's wish, Duy prepared two sets of memorial photos: one for the main altar at the ancestral home and one for their private residence in Ha Noi. However, on the third anniversary of his father's death, upon returning to the ancestral home, Duy and his mother discovered that Du's memorial photo had been removed from the altar without prior notice.

During the court confrontation, defendant Luc explained that during his lifetime, Du had only requested temporary ancestor worship at the ancestral home for an initial period. The primary responsibility for worship later belonged to his wife and children at their private residence.

Therefore, according to Luc, removing the memorial photo after two years was consistent with custom and Du's wishes, returning the shared worship space to the ancestors.

Unable to reach a consensus, Hue requested the court to recognize the legality of the will drafted by her father-in-law in 2006 and to divide the 9,000 square meters of inheritance according to this will.

She also requested the annulment of the agreement for inheritance division from the 2017 family meeting, citing that her husband was pressured by his siblings while gravely ill at that time. Additionally, she sought to revoke the two land use rights certificates issued to Luc and Vien.

At the first-instance hearing, the court determined that the 1,500 square meters of land had been voluntarily given to Vien by the six siblings in 2017. The document, certified by the commune and duly notarized, had signatures acknowledged by the parties involved.

Although the commune's certification document "contained errors," the court ruled that these errors did not alter the voluntary consensus of those who made the gift.

Regarding the remaining over 7,000 square meters of land, the court identified this as the parents' inheritance, as the couple had cultivated it stably and for a long time before 1993. The court ruled that Luc's independent declaration and registration of the land use rights certificate in his name was incorrect. Thus, the court accepted the request for inheritance division.

The court ruled that Hue and her son were entitled to 2,000 square meters.

Hue appealed the entire judgment, arguing that the 2,000 square meters were entirely forest land, with no residential land. According to her, this left her and her son—the eldest grandson of the lineage—without a place to worship her deceased husband at their ancestral home, as per his last wish.

Suspicions of forged signatures in land division agreements

At the appellate hearing, Hue's side argued that the document prepared by her father-in-law and Du's six siblings in 2006 had stipulated the transfer of all assets to Du. The first-instance court had recognized the legality of this agreement, making the assets Du's separate inheritance from that point onward.

Du's siblings no longer held ownership rights to these assets to request an inheritance division.

A copy of the document prepared by the father-in-law and his six children in 2006, lost for 15 years, and recognized as legal by the first-instance court. Photo: Danh Lam

Regarding the family meeting in August 2017, Hue and her son suspect signs of forged signatures of Du, allegedly created by scanning and digitally pasting them onto the documents and agreements.

The basis for this claim is that at the time, Du was in the final stage of cancer, physically debilitated, confined to a wheelchair, and mentally exhausted. He would not have had the physical capacity to directly carry out and sign numerous complex procedures at various agencies.

Concerning the timeline, the defendants stated that the family meeting actually took place on 14/8/2017, and the communal certification occurred two days later.

However, the testimony of the commune's judicial officer recorded the certification date as 26/7/2017, 18 days before the meeting took place.

The defendants explained this as a typing error by the commune officer, but the plaintiff countered that it was impossible for certification to occur nearly one month before the family meeting.

Notably, the case file contains two agreement documents with different contents: one without a specific date and another clearly dated 14/8/2017 with an overlapping seal.

When confronted, defendant Luc explained that the agreement document had lost its final page (the certification section). He admitted to unilaterally taking the commune People's Committee's certification section and pasting it onto the preceding content to submit to the court.

Hue's side asserts that this act of pasting documents raises serious doubts about the integrity and legal value of the evidence provided by the defendants.

Furthermore, throughout the case resolution from the first-instance to the appellate level, the relevant authorities (Notary Public Office, Song Lo District Land Registration Office) and the defendants only provided photocopies, refusing to provide the original documents for comparison and signature verification.

The plaintiff's lawyer also pointed out that the sworn statements of the two defendants and other siblings in the family were "identical down to every dot and comma," raising questions about the objectivity of the case.

Explaining before the court, defendants Luc and Vien affirmed that Du received intermittent hospital treatment but was healthy, lived normally, and was lucid when at home.

The defendants maintained that Du personally chaired the meeting on 14/8/2017 and signed the documents himself.

Regarding the conflicting or unusual points in the documents, the defendants attributed them to family "oversight" and "lack of understanding of administrative procedures," rather than any intent of forgery or deception.

After a temporary halt due to these contradictions, the court will continue to clarify the matter today.

Thanh Lam