7/2551 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 64 (No. 3487) 2008
Mrs. Panatda S. vs. the Land Department, et al.

Re: Land, Community Property

Even though it appears that the third defendant requested issuance of the pre-emption certificate for the disputed land solely in the defendant’s own name, the plaintiff presented evidence that she and the third defendant purchased the disputed land, without documentation of land rights, from the named person which the plaintiff stated specifically was Mr. Wai, but was unable to remember his last name.

When reviewing the evidence showing that the third defendant requested the issuance of the pre-emption certificate on 6 March 2530 B.E. (1987 A.D.), the day and time when the plaintiff and the third defendant were still husband and wife, the disputed land is deemed community property. This indicates that the plaintiff has rights to co-ownership of the land.

The third defendant’s agreeing to give the disputed land to the plaintiff in its entirety for apportioning the assets is permissible and not conflicting with the provisions of the Act Promulgating the Land Code B.E. 2497, section 8, paragraph 2 which states that transfer is permissible to heirs only. Hence, the agreement to divide the assets of the third defendant and the plaintiff concerning the disputed land is not void, and is enforceable, because the plaintiff is a co-owner.

In regard to the legality of issuing the title deed of the disputed land to the third defendant, the first and second defendants, namely Mr. Visawa, the legal officer of the Legal Unit, and the Land Department replied to the plaintiff’s lawyer when questioned that government officials make a preliminary determination and issue a title deed to the person who makes beneficial use of the land first.

Moreover the second defendant, who is a land official, replied to the plaintiff’s attorney that if investigated and found that the person named in the pre-emption certificate has not used the land for a beneficial purpose, the government authorities will not issue a title deed to that person.

The first and second defendant’s witness, Mr. Thongpoon, the headman in the village concerned, replied to questioning by the first and second defendant’s lawyer and the plaintiff’s lawyer that the plaintiff was the person who made a living from the disputed land, whereas the third defendant moved to another sub-district to make a living.

Therefore, the issuance of the title deed to the third defendant is not lawful because the title deed should be issued to the plaintiff. According to the principles stipulated in the Land Code, section 58 bis, and as the title deed is issued unlawfully, the court has authority to revoke this title deed according to paragraph 8, section 61 of the Land Code. The District 2 Appeals Court’s ruling is appropriate and the Supreme Court concurs. The first and second defendant’s appeal has no basis.”

Judgement affirmed.
 
See translation of Act Promulgating the Land Code