In a petition sent to the press, Ms. Hanh shared: In 1994, she and Mr. Tran The Thuy, both living in Chua hamlet, Ma Thanh commune, Yen Thanh district (Nghe An), got married. Because both of them were Catholic and got married in church, and had their marriage recorded in the church's marriage register, they did not register their marriage. During their time together, they had 3 children: Tran Thi Hang (born in 1996), Tran Thi Thuy (born in 1998) and Tran The Tan (born in 2000).
Due to the family's economic difficulties, in 2002, the couple borrowed money for Mr. Thuy to go abroad to do business. She stayed home to take care of her children and mother-in-law. In 2003, Ma Thanh commune organized a land auction. She registered for the auction and won the auction. Although Mr. Thuy was abroad at that time, she still registered for the auction with Mr. Thuy's name. That's why when the land use right certificate was issued, only Mr. Thuy's name was recorded, because there was no marriage registration.
: Confirmation document of Ma Thanh Commune People's Committee regarding Mr. Thuy's absence from 2002-2008.
After many years of doing business abroad, it was not favorable. He could hardly send any money back to his wife and children. Even before returning, Ms. Hanh had to borrow money to send over so that Mr. Thuy could return home. In 2008, Mr. Thuy returned to Vietnam, in 2010, they borrowed money to build a level 4 house to live in. In 2011, Ms. Hanh noticed that Mr. Thuy had many signs of infidelity, so she asked him and her to go to the commune People's Committee to register their marriage.
In 2019, Mr. Thuy had an extramarital affair, so he often beat and abused her, even kicked her out of the house, and brought his lover to live on the land of the coffee kiosk, next to their level 4 house. These things forced her to file for divorce.
Ms. Hanh talking to reporters.
On September 9, 2022, Yen Thanh District People's Court brought the case to trial. The judge and presiding judge of the trial was Mr. Pham Thai Duong. The trial ended with judgment No. 102/2022/HNGD-ST. It is unclear on what basis Yen Thanh District People's Court decided:
1. Regarding the marital relationship: Do not accept the request for divorce settlement of Ms. Phan Thi Hanh; Accept the counterclaim of defendant Tran The Thuy. Do not recognize the marital relationship between Ms. Phan Thi Hanh and Mr. Tran The Thuy.
2. About common children: Not resolved.
3. Regarding common property: Assign to Mr. Thuy the property in kind, which is land plot No. 10, map sheet No. 12/QH 2023, area 350m2 in Chua Son hamlet, Ma Thanh commune, Yen Thanh district, Nghe An province, land use right certificate No. AD 381345 dated March 22, 2006 in the name of Tran The Thuy and the properties on the land are a level 4 house, a kiosk with surrounding corrugated iron roofs, a thatched coffee shop, and a wall surrounding the land plot. Mr. Thuy is responsible for paying Ms. Hanh the difference in the amount of 880,260,000 (Eight hundred and eighty million, two hundred and sixty thousand Dong).
Ms. Hanh's appeal to the press.
With this verdict, not only Ms. Hanh was extremely miserable, but the people, the village and her friends were also extremely indignant. Mrs. H, a neighbor of Ms. Hanh, was indignant: Hanh gave birth to three children, worked hard at home, borrowed money, struggled to raise her children and mother-in-law, but now they do not recognize her as a wife, so what do you think she is? While in 2011, they registered their marriage, and the state recognized it.
Marriage certificate of Ms. Hanh and Mr. Thuy.
Ms. N, a friend of Ms. Hanh, was also very upset: The land on the asphalt road here, now the market price of this plot of land is almost 5 billion, but Hanh was given more than 800 million, while her husband was abroad, only sending back a few million every now and then, she had to borrow money to take care of things at home, now she is also shouldering the debt. This division is too unfair.
Mr. C., another neighbor of Ms. Hanh, was also upset: Considering the effort, Hanh should have been given a larger share of the property. The Court's decision should have been reversed. Hanh should have been given the property in kind. After getting married and having 3 children, her husband went abroad, and Hanh bought the land at home. The Court should have considered the origin of the land. She raised her children to be good people, and took care of her husband's family. She did not commit any fault, but now the Court has decided that way.
The house and kiosk that Yen Thanh District People's Court decided to give to Mr. Thuy.
We contacted the Chief Justice of Yen Thanh District People's Court and were told: The case has been resolved, all decisions are made by the Trial Council. If not satisfied, people can appeal to a higher level.
It is known that the High People's Court in Nghe An will soon bring the case to trial according to the appeal procedure. Hopefully, the upcoming appeal court will consider carefully to have a reasonable and justifiable verdict.
According to Article 59 of the 2014 Law on Marriage and Family, the division of property between spouses upon divorce is primarily based on the agreement of the parties. In case of failure to reach an agreement and a dispute arises, each party has the right to request the Court to resolve the matter. The division ratio is based on the principle of equal division, but other factors such as contributions, family circumstances, faults leading to divorce, etc. are taken into account.
ARTICLE 219, CIVIL CODE 2015 PROVISIONS ON DIVISION OF JOINTLY OWNERSHIP PROPERTY
1. In case of divisible joint ownership, each joint owner has the right to request division of the joint property; if the joint ownership status must be maintained for a period of time as agreed by the joint owners or as prescribed by law, each joint owner only has the right to request division of the joint property upon the expiration of that period; when the joint property cannot be divided in kind, the joint owner requesting division has the right to sell his/her ownership share, unless the joint owners have another agreement.
2. In case someone requests one of the co-owners to perform the payment obligation and that co-owner has no separate property or the separate property is not sufficient to make the payment, the requesting person has the right to request the division of the common property and participate in the division of the common property, unless otherwise provided by law.
If it is not possible to divide the ownership in kind or this division is opposed by the remaining co-owners, the entitled person has the right to request the obligated person to sell his/her ownership to fulfill the payment obligation.
Source link
Comment (0)