05 Judgment on land donation contract invalidated due to fraud in Vietnam

Deception in a civil transaction in Vietnam is an intentional act of one party or a third party in order to mislead the other party about the subject, nature of the object, or the content of the civil transaction.

Here are 05 judgments on contracts for gifting houses and land that are invalid due to deception, please read for reference.

1. Judgment 71/2020/DS-PT dated February 18, 2020 on the request to declare notarized documents invalid

- Level of trial: Appellate

- Judicial body: Ho Chi Minh City People's Court

- Quoting the content: "By chance, Ms. S discovered that the document Mr. V took her and her husband to work at Notary Office B in Ho Chi Minh City is not a document of authorization of the house for the mortgage but a contract for gifting the house, in this contract, there is a handwritten line "read and agreed to give the house" on the part of the donor that is not in Mr. M's handwriting, and Mrs. S mistakenly wrote and signed the contract to donate the house but did not aware that it is a gift for the home. Because Mr. M is illiterate, and Mrs. S is very literate, he can only write under the guidance of others without knowing enough about the script's meaning. Mrs. S was very surprised and surprised to ask V again, but V was silent and did not answer. Therefore, Mr. Luong Thanh V deceived her husband and wife from authorizing the house for V to mortgage to giving a house to V."

2. Judgment 11/2021/DS-PT dated 25/03/2021 on request to declare notarized documents invalid

- Level of trial: Appellate

- Judicial body: People's Court of Thua Thien Hue province

- Quote from the content: “In 2009, her children and grandchildren needed capital to do business, so Ms. Le Thi M lent Mr. Le Thanh S and Mr. Le Thanh T the certificate of land use right to borrow from the Bank. Taking advantage of Ms. Le Thi M who is illiterate, Mr. Le Thanh S and Le Thanh T deceived Ms. Le Thi M to sign a contract to donate the entire house and land to Mr. Le Thanh S and Mr. Le Thanh T. In 2010 Mr. Le Thanh S died. In 2013, Ms. Le Thi M reclaimed the certificate of land use rights, but Mr. Le Thanh T, his wife and children of Mr. Le Thanh S did not agree to return the house and land to the plaintiff."

3. Judgment 08/2020/DSPT dated February 13, 2020 on declaring the notarization contract invalid

- Level of trial: Appellate

- Judicial body: People's Court of Thanh Hoa province

- Quoting the content: "The notary officer instructed her, T, Thu to falsely sign the blank paper and said that after signing, she would add information later, she also asked T again and was instructed by T. The guide is to sign to do the procedures to separate the land for H. Because of trusting her daughter and trusting the notary, she and her daughter Le Thi T2 signed blank papers. When signing documents without Le Thi H signing, the signing place is not at the office of Notary H."

4. Judgment 22/2021/DS-PT dated March 4, 2021 on request to declare notarized documents invalid

- Level of trial: Appellate

- Judicial body: People's Court of Thanh Hoa province

- Quoting the content: "According to Ms. T, Mrs. Nguyen Thi B took advantage of when her mother, Nguyen Thi X, was bedridden to bring the notary home to sign the contract. Mr. Xu believes in his children, so he signed a notarized contract to donate the entire land use right of the husband and wife to Mrs. Nguyen Thi B. When Ms. Nguyen Thi B asked for a Land Use Right Certificate, Mr. M only found out that he was deceived by his wife and daughter, Nguyen Thi B.

5. Judgment 24/2021/DSPT dated September 25, 2021, on the dispute over a contract for the donation of land use rights

- Level of trial: Appellate

- Judicial body: People's Court of Lao Cai province

- Quoting the content: "On June 1, 2017, Mrs. N's daughter-in-law, Nguyen Thi T, told her to go to the notary office to carry out the procedures to bring her two grandchildren into the LURC. When she went to Notary Office No. 1 in Lao Cai, Ms. L, an employee of the office, told her to sign the contract. Mrs. N thought only to sign it to add the names of 2 children to the LURC, so she signed it, but she was not allowed to read, receive and sign the contract. understand the terms of this contract. After a while, when she received the LURC, Mrs. N realized that her name in the LURC was her grandson Hoang Trung H and Hoang Thuy L, and Ms. T did not have her name anymore. Therefore, Ms. N determined that the donation of the land use right was because she was deceived by Ms. T, she did not voluntarily give it like that."