4/2551 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 106 (No. 2102) 2008
Mrs. Boonchua Maneekao vs. Ms. Ubonrat Thoyam

Re: Thailand Land Law, Estate Law

In the event there is no registration of marriage, the determination of assets derived during the cohabitation period in the manner of the defendant and Mr. Vinai is by ascertaining whether the defendant and Mr. Vinai used their joint income to purchase the property or not. If it can be determined that the income was jointly used, it shall be deemed that it is a co-ownership.

The facts concerning the disputed titles to the land appear to be that Mr. Vinai received one plot of land as a gift from his mother, and received another plot of land as inheritance from his father. This is not, therefore, a case of the defendant and Mr. Vinai together using their joint income acquired in the course of their cohabitation to purchase the property. Therefore, the two plots of land are not considered marital property or assets which the defendant holds joint ownership rights under Thai land law. The two plots of land are the sole personal property of Mr. Vinai.

Because the defendant had not registered her marriage with Mr. Vinai, she is not a lawful wife with the status of an heir entitled to inherit the two disputed land plots of Mr. Vinai. The disputed land is therefore the inheritance of the plaintiff, the heir of Mr. Vinai according to blood relationship.

Mr. Vinai’s name was listed as the owner who had moved into the disputed home on 7 July 2532 B.E. (1989 A.D.) according to the house registration of the disputed home. On the other hand, the defendant’s name was listed as the owner and had moved into the home from 21 July 2541 B.E. (1998 A.D.), which was after Mr. Vinai’s death on 21 April 2541 B.E. (1998 A.D.). This shows, therefore, that the house must have been built prior to 2532 B.E. (1989 A.D.), or prior to Mr. Vinai’s moving in as owner.

What must be determined is when the defendant and Mr. Vinai starting cohabitating and if the defendant provided funds in building the disputed home or not. The defendant has not provided satisfactory evidence to explain why, if they had  lived together from 2530 B.E. (1987 A.D.) as she claimed, their common-law marriage ceremony was held in 2535 B.E. (1992 A.D.) based on the photos, and the common-law marriage remained unregistered at that time.

Moreover, the defendant did not bring forth credible witnesses such as the defendant and Mr. Vinai’s supervisor or employer at that time, nor close neighbors to lend weight to the defendant’s claim that she and Mr. Vinai lived together in a common-law marriage from 2530 B.E. (1987 A.D.) and had used their joint funds to construct the disputed home.

The only witness provided by the defendant was Mr. Pijit, a friend of Mr. Vinai, who stated that he was a friend of Mr. Vinai since 2528 B.E. (1985 A.D.). He stated that the defendant and Mr. Vinai lived together since 2530 B.E. (1987 A.D.) and that Mr. Vinai was a photographer. He stated also that the defendant and Mr. Vinai worked together on a television talk show and had used their joint income to construct the disputed home and had ordered construction supplies from Boonserm Panit store, the owner being Mr. Saeng.

The defendant did not provide as witness Mr. Saeng, the owner of the Boonserm Panit store, nor did she bring as evidence the order for supplies used in the construction of the disputed home. Therefore, it is not credible to believe that the defendant, together with Mr. Vinai, used their income to construct the home in 2530 B.E. (1987 A.D.), or the time the defendant claimed they lived together.

From evidence provided by the defendant, it is more credible to believe that the defendant and Mr. Vinai lived together from 2535 B.E. (1992 A.D.) according to the photo of their common-law marriage ceremony.