According to the testimony of H. (residing in Dong Nai Province), on May 17, 2022, she and her husband received a transfer of a 2,100sqm land plot with a granted land use right certificate (red book) in the former Binh Phuoc Province from L. (residing in Dong Nai Province) for VND1 billion.

H said the transfer was established by both parties in a handwritten document. After signing, the couple paid the full amount of VND1 billion to L. Both parties proceeded with the land handover, and L. gave the original red book to the couple to hold. Since then, H. and her husband directly managed and used the land plot stably.

The use of the land by H. and her husband was continuous and without dispute until legal issues related to L.'s assets emerged in another civil case.

Specifically, in October 2022, the civil judgment enforcement agency of Bu Dang District, former Binh Phuoc Province, sent a document to functional agencies requesting coordination to stop resolving requests related to L.'s property rights. 

In October 2023, the District People's Court issued a decision to apply interim urgent measures, freezing the asset which is the land-use right of the aforementioned 2,100sqm plot belonging to L.

After her husband passed away, H. filed a lawsuit, requesting the court to recognize the validity of the handwritten land transfer contract between L. and her husband on May 17, 2022. 

In June 2025, H. changed the contents of the lawsuit. At this time, in addition to the handwritten document, she also requested the court to recognize the validity of the land use right transfer contract certified on May 18, 2022. However, the transfer value in this contract was only VND450 million.

At the first-instance trial, L. confirmed signing the land transfer to H. and her husband via a handwritten document for VND1 billion. One day later, both parties signed a certified transfer contract with a price of VND450 million. 

According to L., the nature of the land transfer was a form of collateral for a VND1 billion loan from H.'s couple, because the market price of the land was up to VND2 billion.

In the first-instance judgment on September 19, 2025, the People's Court of Area 12 – Dong Nai did not accept H.'s lawsuit request, declaring the certified land transfer contract void and forcing L. to return VND655 million to H. Disagreeing with this verdict, H. appealed.

Handwritten transfer contract recognized

Stating the perspective at the appellate trial, the representative of the Dong Nai Provincial People's Procuracy requested the Trial Panel to accept part of the plaintiff's appeal, amending part of the first-instance judgment toward recognizing the validity of the handwritten transfer contract and declaring the certified transfer contract void.

Reviewing the appeal content, the Appellate Court found that both H. and L. admitted to establishing the land transfer transaction on May 17, 2022, through a "land plot sale paper" with an actual price of VND1 billion. 

On May 18, 2022, the parties re-established a certified transfer contract but recorded a price of VND450 million to reduce tax obligations. After signing, L. received the full amount and handed over the land to H.'s husband for stable management and use.

Meanwhile, L. argued that the transaction was only collateral for a loan but had no evidence to prove it; it was merely a one-sided testimony and contradicted her own previous admission. The fact that the first-instance judgment only relied on L.'s testimony to determine the transfer contract as a sham to hide a collateral transaction was inappropriate.

The Appellate Court analyzed that the certified transfer contract dated May 18, 2022, was a sham transaction regarding the price as it did not reflect the actual price, therefore it was void.

However, the hidden transaction was the transfer contract dated May 17, 2022, with a price of VND1 billion, which was the essential transaction. Although this contract did not guarantee the required form, the parties had completed their obligations. Therefore, the Appellate Court held that the handwritten transfer contract was legally effective.

Based on this analysis, the Appellate Court accepted part of H.'s appeal, amending part of the first-instance judgment toward recognizing the validity of the actual transfer transaction, while maintaining the decision to declare the certified transfer contract void due to price falsification.

Hong Khanh