2/2551 Thailand Supreme
Court Opinion 87 (No. 505) 2008
Inquiry Official of Bangrak Metropolitan Police Headquarters vs. Mrs. S. Rotjanasuwan, Mr. W. Rotjanasuwan, (Intervenor)
Re: Land Used as Security
The trial court ordered the defendant to pay 150,000 baht including interest of 7.5 percent per year, however the defendant was unwilling to pay the debt according to the judgment. The plaintiff requested the court enforce the judgment and have officers seize the land based on the document certifying the beneficial use of land (Nor Sor 3 Kor), number 1906, land area of 11 rai, 3 ngan, 13 square wah, with land price of around 471,300 baht to enforce the payment of debt according to the judgment.
The intervenor (husband) filed a Thailand property legal case stating that the disputed land, according to the document certifying beneficial land use that the plaintiff requested the court to seize, was not community property of the defendant (wife), but was the separate property of the intervenor which he received from his ancestors. He also stated that the plaintiff had not filed an action against the intervenor, therefore the plaintiff had no rights to seize the land, and to request that the court release the seized property.
The plaintiff gave testimony that the intervenor’s petition was obscure and did not clearly explain how and when the intervenor acquired the land from his ancestors, and that the disputed land was community property that the defendant had used as security for entering into a bail agreement with the plaintiff to bail an alleged offender. The plaintiff explained that the intervenor had provided his consent and had provided a document certifying the land price for the disputed land based on the attached documents, and that the intervenor was fully aware that the land was community property that the defendant used as security for debt during the marriage. The intervenor therefore had no authority to intervene, and the plaintiff requested the court to dismiss the motion.
The trial court ordered the release of the seized property.
The plaintiff appealed.
The Appellate Court confirmed the trial court’s judgment.
The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court judged that “…an analysis has been made, and the preliminary facts of the case are that the intervenor is the husband of the defendant. Their marriage was registered on 20 September 2520 B.E. (1977 A.D.). On 21 November 2532 B.E. (1989 A.D.) the defendant entered into a bail agreement to bail an alleged offender with the plaintiff and had used as security the disputed land according to the certificate for beneficial land use document in which the intervenor’s name appeared on the document as the one with possessory right. The intervenor had provided a document consenting to action and certifying the land assessment price. Thereafter the defendant breached the bail agreement. The plaintiff filed a motion against the defendant for payment of debt. The trial court ordered the defendant to pay 150,000 baht including interest to the plaintiff. The case was fought to the end. The defendant failed to pay the debt according to the judgment. The plaintiff requested a summons to enforce the judgment and the court’s order for officials to seize the disputed land and to auction the land, and thereafter to use the money from the auction to pay off the debt.