5/2551 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 179 (No. 5740) 2008
Mr. Rabiep Boonprakrong et al vs. Mrs Boonriep Tangsiamwanit

Re: Access Way; Joint Owners; Land

The law stipulates an access way for the benefit of owners of land with no access to public ways under paragraph one, section 1349 of the Civil and Commercial Code.

Only the land owner is entitled to file a lawsuit for opening an access way. The first to third plaintiffs constructed a home on the land according to the land utilization certificate (Nor Sor 3 Gor), number 439, but were not the owners of the land. Even though it is acknowledged that such land was surrounded by other plots of land, the first to the third plaintiffs have no right to file an action for opening an access way.

The fourth and fifth plaintiffs, Sor, Nor, and Mor were the joint owners in the land according to the land utilization certificate (Nor Sor 3 Gor) number 439. They had not yet divided ownership of the land, hence they were co-owners of the entire plot of land. Therefore, any one of such co-owners may exercise rights against third persons under section 1359 of the Civil and Commercial Code and Thai land law.

The right to file a lawsuit of the fourth and fifth plaintiffs against the defendant for opening an access way is a right in place of the other co-owners, including Sor.

In other words, if the fourth and fifth plaintiffs file a suit for opening an access way, the access way would benefit all co-owners.

However, Sor was an owner of land title deed number 2528 which was adjacent to a public way on one side, and the other was adjacent to the land based on the land utilization certificate (Nor Sor 3 Gor) number 439.

Therefore, Sor has no right to require the defendant to open an access way for the land based on land utilization certificate (Nor Sor 3 Gor) number 439 because such plot of land was accessible to a public way through an adjacent plot of land owned by Sor based on land title deed number 2528.

Because Sor constructed a building on land title deed number 2528 and provided a passage for entry and exit on the side adjacent to the defendant’s land of around 1 meters, the fourth and fifth plaintiffs could not pass through by car, although there was enough space to walk pass.

This made it less convenient for the fourth and fifth plaintiffs to access the public way. It cannot be deemed that the land, according to the land utilization certificate (Nor Sor 3 Gor) number 439, was inaccessible to the public way. The fourth and fifth plaintiffs have no right to ask the defendant to open an access way.

5/2551 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 100 (No. 3793) 2008
Mrs. Suwagoon Ongwanit vs. Mr. Pansak Boonpongsa et al

Re: Land Mortgaged

The court ordered the first defendant (mortgagor/borrower) to make compensation to the plaintiff (mortgagee/lender). In the event payment is not made, the mortgaged land of the second defendant is to be seized and auctioned, and the money received is to be paid to cover the debts owed the plaintiff. Even though the mortgage agreement did not mention any construction on the land, the plaintiff is entitled to seize the construction owned by the second defendant, including the mortgaged land for auction under paragraph 2, section 719 of the Civil and Commercial Code which authorizes the mortgagee to do so because the construction is a part of the mortgaged land.

The plaintiff is not required to request the court to specify in the writ of execution nor specify in the petition for the writ of execution for authorization to seize the construction on the mortgaged land. Moreover, the plaintiff does not need to present evidence to show the court that it would be easier to auction and get a good price if the construction on the land was included in the sale.

Furthermore, the execution is not beyond or outside what was stated in the plaintiff’s writ of execution. Seizure of the assets by the plaintiff was according to Thailand land law. The defendant has no right to request the court to revoke the seizure of such construction on the mortgaged land.