Dispute over agreement on division of inheritance

I. Details of the incident

The original plot of land, measuring 3000m² ^, located in Ho Chi Minh City, was granted to the household of Ms. Th. At the time the land was granted, the household consisted of four members: Ms. Th, Mr. L, Ms. L, and Mr. Tr. In 2007, Ms. Th passed away without leaving a will. According to current inheritance law, her share of the aforementioned land was left to her first-degree heirs, comprising nine children. Ms. Th’s father died in 1952, and her mother died in 1963.

In 2009, the nine children made an agreement to leave the land to Ms. B to register in her name, and then transfer it to Mr. T, who was in the US, upon his return to Vietnam. At the same time, Ms. B was to divide the land into three equal portions of 80m2 each for Mr. M, Mr. G, and Mr. L [all brothers]. They also agreed on several other matters regarding land surveying and household registration, but these were not implemented.

Later, in 2010, at the notary office, nine children unconditionally gifted their entire inherited share of the property to Ms. B, one of Ms. Th’s nine children. Also in 2010, Mr. L, Ms. L, and Mr. Tr gifted their land within Ms. Th’s household to Ms. B.

Real estate disputes are very common.

In 2016, Ms. B completed the procedures to register the property in her name and gifted the entire property to Mr. H [who is also one of the nine children].

In 2020, Mr. L filed a lawsuit against Mr. H in the Ho Chi Minh City Court, demanding that Ms. B and Mr. H return to the plaintiff the land area of ​​1/9 of the land as stated in the Certificate issued to Ms. Th’s household. At the same time, Mr. M – a person with related rights and obligations – requested that the Declaration and Agreement on the Division of Inheritance, made at the notary office between the nine children, be declared invalid. Mr. H requested a lawyer to participate in the case to protect his legitimate rights.

II. Legal regulations related to the matter

• According to Clause 2, Article 681 of the 2005 Civil Code, all agreements between heirs must be in writing.
• At the same time, Article 122 of the 2005 Civil Code stipulates the conditions for a civil transaction to be legally valid as follows: “ 1. A civil transaction is valid when it meets the following conditions: a) The parties to the transaction have legal capacity; b) The purpose and content of the transaction do not violate legal prohibitions and are not contrary to social morality; c) The parties to the transaction act entirely voluntarily. 2. The form of a civil transaction is a condition for its validity in cases where the law so prescribes.”
• Based on Clause 7, Article 95 of the 2013 Land Law, which stipulates : ” The registration of land and assets attached to the land takes effect from the time of registration in the Land Register, “ and Article 692 of the 2005 Civil Code, which stipulates : ” The transfer of land use rights takes effect from the time of registration of land use rights as prescribed by land law.”

III. The lawyer’s legal solution regarding the case

• The lawyer asserted that the plaintiff’s claim and the independent claim of the related party were unfounded, because:
• According to the land certificate, the aforementioned plot of land was granted to the household of Ms. Th, including the following four members: Ms. Th, Mr. L, Ms. L, and Mr. Tr. Therefore, the agreement reached by the nine children is invalid in terms of the parties involved. Not only is it invalid in terms of the parties participating in establishing the agreement, but the agreement also contains clauses that were not implemented by the parties. Thus, the agreement reached in 2009 is void.
• In 2010, at the notary office, nine children unconditionally gifted their entire inherited share of property to Ms. B, one of Ms. Th’s nine children. Also in 2010, Mr. L, Ms. L, and Mr. Tr gifted their land within Ms. Th’s household to Ms. B. These final agreements, drawn up at the notary office in accordance with legal procedures, are legally valid.
• In fact, both parties fulfilled their agreement to hand over their respective land portions to carry out the land registration procedures. From the time Ms. B was granted the Certificate of Land Use Rights until she gifted and transferred ownership to Mr. H in accordance with the law, Mr. M and Mr. L did not raise any objections regarding this matter.
• Therefore, the plaintiff’s claim and the related party’s independent claim are unfounded and cannot be accepted. We request that the Ho Chi Minh City Court reject the plaintiff’s claim and the related party’s independent claim.

IV. Court Judgment

• The court accepted the lawyer’s arguments, dismissed all of the plaintiff’s claims, and rejected all independent claims from related parties.
• Thus, Mr. H has protected his ownership rights.