According to S. (residing in Vinh Long Province), in 2002, he and his wife received the transfer of the rice farming land plot in the former Tra Vinh Province from B. and her husband (residing in Vinh Long Province) for the price of VND53 million.

The transfer was recorded in writing by both parties according to the prescribed form, with witnesses and confirmation from the Commune People's Committee. In 2003, S. and his wife were granted a land use right certificate (red book).

S. and his wife used the land plot for livestock, cultivation, and developed many items such as fences, barns, and fish ponds.

Because he saw B.'s family circumstances were difficult, he allowed the couple to build a temporary small hut to live on the land he had bought.

However, S. claimed that they took advantage of his trust and the fact that he rarely visited to manage the land. B. and her husband encroached on the land and built a solid house on it. When S. returned to use the land, he was prevented by B. and her husband, from which the dispute arose.

S. filed a lawsuit, requesting B. and her husband to return the encroached land where the solid house had been built on his plot.

At the first-instance trial, B. argued that in 2002, she and her husband only transferred an area of 2,000sqm to S. and his wife, while the remaining part of about 700sqm still belonged to her family.

According to B., because she was illiterate, she only placed her fingerprint on the handwritten paper and handed over the red book to S. to perform the procedures for transferring the title of the sold land part. 

After many years, while performing the acceptance procedures for a charity house supported by the locality, she discovered that S. held the title to the entire land plot.

B. counter-sued, requesting to cancel the transfer contract, cancel the red book issued to S., and recognize the right of use for the land part her family was living on.

In the first-instance judgment dated February 29, 2024, the People's Court of Chau Thanh District (former Tra Vinh Province) determined that the land-use right transfer contract between the parties was established in the correct form, certified by competent authorities, and in accordance with legal regulations.

Testimonies from witnesses also showed that B. and her husband were well aware of and agreed to the transfer of the entire land plot to S. in 2002. B.'s side could not provide evidence to prove that only a portion of the land area was transferred.

However, considering B.'s actual circumstances as a household in difficult conditions, where the current house is the sole residence and was built from local support sources, the court of first instance resolved the matter under the spirit of harmonizing the interests of both parties.

The court assigned B. and her husband to continue using an area of 58.4sqm on the land plot, where the charity house and barns are located. B. and her husband were forced to pay S. an amount of VND58.4m corresponding to the value of the land use rights. Other counter-claims by B. were not accepted.

After the first-instance judgment, both parties appealed. S. requested that B. and her husband be forced to relocate all houses and assets and return the entire original disputed land area. Meanwhile, B. and her husband continued to request recognition of land-use rights for themselves and the cancellation of a part of S.'s red book.

At the appellate trial, the Trial Panel of the Tra Vinh Provincial People's Court (now the Vinh Long Provincial People's Court) assessed that identifying S. as the legal user of the entire land plot had a solid legal basis.

However, based on the verification official dispatch from the local government showing that B.'s family falls under a category with great housing difficulties, forcing the relocation of the entire house was deemed unsuitable for reality and local social security policies. Therefore, the appellate court decided not to accept the appeals of both parties and upheld the first-instance judgment.

Anh Phuong