Decision No. 220/QD-CA on the Announcement of Judicial Precedents

Content of the precedents published:

1. Precedent No. 01/2016/AL: In a case involving accomplices, if it is proven that the mastermind's subjective intention was merely to hire someone to injure the victim without the intention of taking their life (the mastermind only requested injuries to the victim's legs and arms without requesting attacks on vital body parts that could lead to death), and the executor acted according to the mastermind's request, the victim's death occurring outside the mastermind's subjective intention, the mastermind must bear criminal liability for the crime of "Intentional Infliction of Injury" with the aggravating circumstance of "inflicting injury leading to death".

2. Precedent No. 02/2016/AL: In cases where an overseas Vietnamese has spent money to acquire land use rights and has someone in the country register the land use rights on their behalf, when resolving disputes the court must consider and calculate the effort involved in the maintenance, preservation, and enhancement of the land use value by the person holding the title. If the exact effort cannot be determined, it is necessary to acknowledge that the person who paid for the land and the title-holder have equal efforts to share the increased value of the land compared to the original purchase price.

3. Precedent No. 03/2016/AL: When parents give a plot of land to their child's married couple, and the couple builds a permanent house on the land for use as residence, without objections from the parents or other family members, and the couple continuously, openly, and stably uses the house and land, having registered the land and received a land use right certificate, it must be determined that the couple has been granted the land use rights.

4. Precedent No. 04/2016/AL: In cases where property, including house and land, is jointly owned by a married couple but only one spouse signs the contract to transfer the property to someone else while the other spouse does not, if there is sufficient evidence that the selling spouse has received the full payment as agreed and the non-signing spouse is aware and has also used the proceeds from the sale; the transferee has openly taken control and used the property, and the non-signing spouse, knowing all this, raises no objections, it must be concluded that the non-signing spouse agrees with the property transfer.

5. Precedent No. 05/2016/AL: In an inheritance dispute case, where an inheritor entitled to a share of the inheritance has contributed efforts towards the management and enhancement of the inheritance but disagrees with the division of the inheritance (arguing that the statute of limitations for inheritance claims has expired) and makes no specific demand about their contributions, if the court decides to divide the inheritance among the heirs, it must consider the contributions of the dissenting heir because the request not to divide the inheritance is greater than the request to acknowledge contributions.

6. Precedent No. 06/2016/AL: In inheritance dispute cases involving heirs residing abroad, if the court has carried out judicial entrustment, collected evidence as per legal requirements but still cannot determine the addresses of those heirs, the court must still resolve the plaintiff’s request. If the heritage can be identified, and there is no will, the court divides the inheritance among the plaintiff in accordance with the law. The inheritance share of the absent heirs, whose addresses cannot be determined, will be temporarily managed by the local heirs to later be handed over to the absent heirs when located.

>> CLICK HERE TO READ THIS ARTICLE IN VIETNAMESE