Ca Mau woman unable to reclaim land loaned verbally after 20 years

After more than 20 years of lending land under an oral agreement, a woman in Ca Mau sought to reclaim the land through a lawsuit, but the court did not order the land to be returned. Instead, the parties using the land were ordered to repay part of the value of the land-use rights.

Background of the oral land loan

According to testimony of Ms. N. in case number 263/2025/DS-PT dated September 18, 2025, she was issued a certificate of land-use rights for more than 40,000 m2 in 2003.

In 2004, Ms. N. said she lent approximately 5,500 m2 of land to the couple D under an oral agreement, with the understanding that she could demand the return of the land when needed.

Ms. N. later requested the couple D to move their houses and crops to restore the lent area. The couple refused.

Disputed area and positions of both sides

During the actual survey, the disputed land area managed by the couple D was nearly 3,400 m2. Ms. N. filed a lawsuit seeking the return of this portion and did not accept covering relocation costs.

In contrast, the couple D argued that the disputed land had origins dating back to the 1990s, when their family cleared the land. They stated that the land was granted for use in 1992–1993 and that they had used it stably since 2001.

The couple D said they had never borrowed land from Ms. N. and did not know about Ms. N.’s land-use certificate until the dispute arose in 2023. They also indicated they had previously carried out land-clearing transactions with others, but did not request the court to resolve those matters in this case. They further urged the court to review the certificate to adjust for possible overlap.

Court findings at first instance

The trial panel found that Ms. N.’s land-use certificate was legally issued, including the disputed portion. However, because the couple D had used the land continuously for a long time—building a house and cultivating aquatic products—the court did not order the land to be returned. Instead, it applied compensation for the value of the land-use rights.

Specifically, the first-instance judgment ordered the couple D to pay Ms. N. more than 132 million dong, corresponding to the value of 3,400 m2 of land. At the same time, the couple D was allowed to continue managing and using the land and to apply for a land-use certificate in accordance with regulations.

Appeal and appellate court decision

Ms. N. appealed, arguing that the disputed land had been covered by land-use certificates issued since 1997 and renewed in 2003. She said the first-instance decision to require payment of only 40% of the land value was inadequate and requested the court to order the return of the land.

The couple D argued that the first-instance process did not include full participation of relevant parties and maintained that they had used the land stably for many years.

After review, the Ca Mau appellate court concluded that although Ms. N. had a valid land-use certificate, she did not prove direct possession and use of the land or that the land had been lent as described. Meanwhile, the court found that the couple D had used the land continuously since 1993, with improvements and farming.

The appellate court held that ordering the couple D to return 40% of the land’s value—equivalent to more than 132 million dong—was appropriate. It said the decision balanced Ms. N.’s legitimate rights with the couple D’s efforts in developing and using the land. Accordingly, there was no basis to accept Ms. N.’s request to reclaim the land.

The appellate court upheld the first-instance judgment, ordering the couple D to pay the land value to Ms. N., while allowing them to continue managing and using the disputed land and proceed with the land certificate as required.