On 20/4, the People's Court of Hung Yen Province held an appellate hearing for a land dispute lawsuit between the plaintiffs, Ms. Hai, 64, and her husband, and the defendants, her elder sister, Ms. Ca, 68, and her husband. The appeal was filed by the younger sister.

A first-instance judgment in January found that the two sisters lived next to each other in Dong Quan commune. Ms. Hai and her husband owned a plot of land nearly 70 square meters, for which they received a land use right certificate (red book) in 2016. In 2017, the elder sister built her house. The younger sister, trusting her sibling, did not request a land surveyor to re-measure the plot. Her brother-in-law even helped with the construction.

In 2024, while planning to build a house for her child, Ms. Hai inspected her property and discovered that her elder sister's construction encroached upon 15,6 square meters of her land. The encroaching structures included a 5-meter-long wall, steps, a tiled yard, and a corrugated iron roof.

Attempts by local authorities to mediate the dispute were unsuccessful. Ms. Hai then filed a lawsuit, demanding the demolition of the encroaching structures and the return of her land.

Ms. Hai's land, now 52 square meters (orange), after her elder sister's house encroached on 14,5 square meters (blue stripes).

The defendants admitted that there was an unintentional error during construction due to a mistaken boundary marker. At the time of construction, the younger sister did not object.

Because the house and auxiliary structures were already built solidly, Ms. Ca proposed compensation for the entire encroached land at the valuation council's price, or higher, at 15 million VND per square meter.

Ms. Ca's son and daughter-in-law, who directly oversaw the construction, agreed to dismantle the wall and the corrugated iron roof to return the land and space. However, they argued that demolishing other structures would affect the building's overall integrity.

The first-instance court determined that Ms. Ca's family had encroached on 15,6 square meters of her younger sister's land. The court found that demolishing the 1,1 square meters of surrounding wall and the corrugated iron roof would not affect the structure's integrity. The defendant agreed, so the Trial Panel (HDXX) ordered Ms. Ca's family to dismantle this section and return the land.

The two-story house, built with reinforced concrete, had a first-floor awning and a solid second-floor structure extending towards the yard, projecting vertically over the steps. The steps, tiled yard, and corrugated iron roof were valuable auxiliary structures. All were built on the encroached land of the younger sister.

The HDXX noted that forcing the demolition of these structures would affect the entire house's integrity, causing property damage and reducing its usability. "Moreover, this could make it difficult for the sisters to reconcile," the judgment stated.

The HDXX did not mandate demolition but instead ordered monetary compensation at 15 million VND per square meter, totaling 217 million VND.

Plaintiff: 52 square meters unsuitable for rural housing needs

At today's hearing, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant was present, having authorized their children to represent them. The plaintiff maintained her appeal, requesting the appellate court to accept all her demands, meaning the elder sister's house must be demolished to return the land.

Before allowing the parties to question each other, the HDXX continued to encourage mediation, suggesting "each side step back a little" out of consideration for family ties, emphasizing that "siblings should resolve issues within the family". The presiding judge advised them to meet again to reach a reasonable figure, end the dispute promptly to focus on other important matters, and mend their relationship. "Do not think about winning or losing, but about family bonds," the presiding judge said.

The plaintiff stated that she had always desired mediation and continued to do so in court. They were willing to accept money instead of demolition, but at a fair amount. According to their statement, after the encroachment, the remaining land area was only just over 52 square meters. "An area of 52 square meters is not suitable for living conditions in the local area; no one in the countryside wants to build a house there, although it might be acceptable in Hanoi," the plaintiff's lawyer explained.

According to the lawyer, the original frontage of the plot was 5 meters, but now it is only 4 meters. The house's value was not only affected by the reduced area but also by the narrowed frontage and width, which diminished the entire plot's value. Therefore, the compensation should be calculated based on this, not just by multiplying the unit price by the square meters.

When asked about a fair amount, the younger sister's side proposed an additional 170-180 million VND compared to the 217 million VND from the first-instance phase, bringing the total to about 400 million VND.

The defendant argued that this amount was too high. They cited that the land was only valued at over 9 million VND per square meter, but they had voluntarily increased it to 15 million VND in the first-instance phase. According to the defendant, they could only increase it by one million VND, to 16 million VND per square meter, making the total compensation 232 million VND.

The HDXX suggested that this amount "might be a bit too low" and allowed a 10-minute recess for both parties to consider.

The defendant then increased the compensation offer to 250, then 280 million VND. However, the plaintiff's representative, after consulting her family, proposed 330 million VND. Realizing no agreement would be reached, the HDXX ended the mediation and resumed the trial.

The Procuracy stated its view, suggesting that 280 million VND was appropriate considering "social ethics and the actual situation of the parties." The HDXX concurred, finding the first-instance judgment reasonable and thus no grounds to accept the younger sister's appeal. However, the court accepted the elder sister's voluntary offer of compensation during the appellate phase. Accordingly, Ms. Ca's family must pay her younger sister's family 280 million VND, and Ms. Ca is not required to demolish the solid structures, tiled yard, steps, corrugated iron roof, etc., on the encroached land.

Thanh Lam