The Phu Tho Provincial People's Court announced its ruling on 17/9, dismissing the lawsuit filed by the eldest son, Mr. Nam, 75, and his 8 siblings. The defendant, Mr. Dung, 66, retains full ownership of the 1,200 m2 land plot, as his name is still on the land title certificate.

"Land is a valuable asset, but the bond between siblings is sacred. The division of inheritance within a family, if not handled with agreement and compromise, can lead to conflict and fractured relationships," presiding judge Nguyen Quang Vu advised the parties after announcing the verdict. He noted that the case, spanning 5 years, two first-instance trials, and one appeal, with nearly 10 court appearances by the 11 siblings, had regrettably failed to reach a mutual agreement.

The case revolved around a 1,200 m2 plot of land purchased by the parents in 1962 from a fellow villager. They allocated 138 m2 to Mr. Dung, their 4th child and the defendant, for his own house.

The parents died without leaving a will. In 2020, Mr. Nam gathered his 11 siblings to discuss building an ancestral shrine on the remaining 1,075 m2, but Mr. Dung informed them that the entire 1,213 m2 plot was already under his ownership, with a land title issued by Thanh Thuy district in 2005, while their mother was still alive.

Mr. Nam argued that his brother's ownership, without written authorization or a gift deed from their parents and without a family meeting, was illegal. Seven other siblings authorized Mr. Nam to sue, demanding that Mr. Dung keep only 138 m2 and divide the rest equally among the 11 siblings.

Mr. Dung stated he had sufficient evidence of the land allocation from his parents. He disagreed with the "sudden" demand for division by his eldest brother after decades of peaceful and stable living. He explained that his father had initiated the paperwork with the communal People's Committee in 1992 for the entire 1,213 m2 plot. He had since developed the land, built a surrounding wall, paid land taxes, and used it continuously, registering it in the land registry.

According to Mr. Dung, the entire inheritance had been settled long ago, with no objections regarding the 1,213 m2 plot he occupied and owned. He believed the current dispute arose due to a recent increase in land value, leading his siblings to "suddenly demand their share." Therefore, he refused to comply.

In court, Mr. Nam repeatedly insisted he wasn't disputing the land for monetary gain. His sole wish, in his old age, was to use the land to build an ancestral shrine, a gathering place for siblings and descendants to remember their ancestors and parents, and honor their traditions.

Mr. Nam claimed that in 1991, his parents and two younger siblings still lived in the house on that land, only establishing their own families in 1995. "There's no way he was given the land without the whole family knowing. Such a claim is unethical, not to mention illegal," he stated.

The plaintiff's representative argued that despite Mr. Dung's claims of receiving the land from his parents, "there's no will or evidence of land allocation in the entire record," urging the court to reconsider the matter.

"With so many sons in the family, it's against tradition to leave everything to one person. How can we believe the story that our parents left over a thousand square meters of land to Mr. Dung?" the plaintiff's side reasoned.

The People's Procuracy and the judging panel questioned the fact that the parents had purchased another plot in the same commune and moved to a new house in 1992. When Mr. Nam insisted his parents lived in the old house until their death, the People's Procuracy asked, "If your parents always lived in the old house, why were their funerals held at the new house?" Mr. Nam replied, "They only occasionally went there to visit and look after the shop."

Mr. Dung countered that after his father's death in 2005, his eldest brother, acting as the eldest son, asked their mother to gather the siblings to sell the disputed land to their youngest sister for 180 million VND, dividing 30 million VND among each son and 2 million VND among each daughter.

All siblings involved in the lawsuit denied receiving any money.

The People's Procuracy representative acknowledged the parties' right to answer as they wished, but emphasized that truth and evidence prevail. "If the inheritance has already been divided and the money received, yet you deny it, your conscience must be troubled. I urge you, all of you are elderly now, to reconcile, preserve your sibling bond, and maintain family harmony," the representative appealed after observing the tension between the parties.

The judging panel repeatedly reminded the parties to "testify truthfully and avoid offensive language."

After reviewing the evidence, the judging panel recalled that in the first trial and the appeal, the records related to Mr. Dung's land title were unavailable, as both the communal and district People's Committees reported their loss.

However, on 28/3/2024, the communal People's Committee located and provided crucial evidence documenting the land title issuance.

In 2000, the commune conducted a review to issue land titles to all residents. A 10-member review board was established to examine, verify, discuss, and resolve each land use application for submission to the competent authority. This process was public, allowing residents to register and the authorities to address complaints.

By 30/6/2001, the board identified 668 eligible households without disputes, instructing the commune's land administration to finalize their applications for submission to the district. On 1/7/2001, the communal People's Committee publicly posted the applications and the list of 668 households at its headquarters and announced them via loudspeaker. After 15 days without receiving any complaints, the communal People's Committee submitted the applications to the district People's Committee on 15/7/2001. On 19/12/2005, land titles were issued to the 668 households, including Mr. Dung.

Since the parents lived in the locality during the land titling process, and neither they nor their other children applied for the title except Mr. Dung, the court concluded that the parents had agreed to give the land to him.

Furthermore, the procedures were conducted publicly by the communal People's Committee, with titles issued to all 668 eligible applicants, not just Mr. Dung. After public posting and announcement, and the absence of disputes within the stipulated timeframe, the review board processed the applications, with titles issued nearly 5 years later. This further confirmed the parents' intention to give the land to Mr. Dung, and the lack of objections from them or their other children upon Mr. Dung receiving the title.

The court deemed Mr. Nam and his siblings' claims of being unaware of the land titling process, public posting, and loudspeaker announcements unsubstantiated and lacking objectivity. If the parents hadn't given the land to Mr. Dung and continued to live there, their move to another plot in 1992 wouldn't be explained.

"Moreover, if the mother still lived on the disputed land and hadn't given it to Mr. Dung, why wasn't her funeral held there instead of the new house, despite being only 2 km away?" the court questioned.

From 1992 onwards, records showed Mr. Dung, not the parents, paid annual land use fees for the 1,200 m2 plot. He constructed buildings, renovated the land, filled a pond, and repeatedly used the title as collateral for bank loans without any objections from his siblings.

Additionally, according to the testimony of a land administration official from that period, around 1991, the father visited and stated his intention to give the land to his 4th son, Mr. Dung, who wasn't skilled in business. "He gave the land to Mr. Dung and his wife for farming and livestock, as his other children were business-oriented and lived in the city. He then requested the official to transfer the land registration from his name to Mr. Dung's," the official stated.

Based on this list and map documents, the commune subsequently processed Mr. Dung's land title. The court also heard testimonies from relatives corroborating the father's intention to bequeath the land to Mr. Dung.

The court acknowledged that while land gifting legally requires notarized documentation, in practice, many such transfers occur without formal procedures. When the giver has transferred the land and the recipient has managed and used it openly, continuously, and stably, "the law recognizes this as rightful possession," the court stated.

The judging panel thus confirmed the completion of the land transfer and recognized Mr. Dung's ownership of the 1,200 m2 plot, bequeathed to him by his parents.

The court dismissed all claims of the plaintiff.

Thanh Lam