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

Re: Land, Community Property

The plaintiff filed an action requesting a ruling that the plaintiff holds ownership rights to the land according to the pre-emption certificate number 336, Moo 3, Banna Sub-District, Klang District, Rayong Province.

She further requested the court to prohibit the three defendants from any involvement in the land and to order the revocation of the three defendants’ title deed, namely title deed number 28982, Banna Sub-District, Klang District, Rayong Province.

Additionally, the plaintiff requested the court rule that the first and second defendants investigate and survey the land according to the pre-emption certificate number 336 and issue a title deed to the plaintiff.

In the event the three defendants take no action, the judgement of the court will take precedence.

The first and second defendants requested the case be dismissed by the court.

The third defendant defaulted in submitting an answer and defaulted in the court appearance.

The trial court ruled the case be dismissed and waived the court fees.

The plaintiff appealed.

The District 2 Appeals Court reversed the trial court’s judgement, determining the plaintiff as owner and holding possessory rights over the disputed land according to Thailand land law.  

The court ordered title deed number 28982, Banna Sub-District, Klang District, Rayong Province be revoked and the dismissal of any other requests. The court waived fees for the appeals court.

The first and second defendants appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled that “The preliminary facts heard and accepted are that the plaintiff and the third defendant were husband and wife according to law and had registered their marriage in 2521 B.E. (1978 A.D.).

On 6 March 2530 B.E. (1987 A.D.), the third defendant requested the pre-emption certificate be issued for the disputed land. Subsequently, at the end of that year the plaintiff and the third defendant agreed to a Thailand divorce. They made a record on the back of the divorce certificate that the disputed land would belong to the plaintiff.

Subsequently the plaintiff occupied and benefited from the disputed land by growing trees for rubber cultivation. In 2535 B.E. (1992 A.D.), the government surveyed the land for issuance of a title deed in a section of the disputed land.

It appears that the third defendant contacted government authorities and was issued a title deed for the disputed land.

What must be determined based on the appeal of the first and second defendants is whether the division of assets of the third defendant and the plaintiff concerning the disputed land is void or not, and if the issuance of the title deed for the disputed land to the third defendant by the first and second defendants is lawful or not.