Thailand Law Forum Thailand Law Forum  
Feature Articles :

Green Policies Take   Off: Thailand’s Support   For Renewable Energy

The Darker Side of   Tropical Bliss: Foreign   Mafia in Thailand

US Sex Laws in Thailand
  Part 1

US Sex Laws in Thailand
  Part 2
US Sex Laws in Thailand
  Part 3
Foreign Investigators:
  Crime Fiction in a Thai
Considerations for
  International Prenuptial
  Agreements in Thailand
Medical Malpractice in

Submissions :

This case decision was researched and translated with the assistance of Chaninat & Leeds a full service law firm providing legal services for client requiring a K1 visa in Thailand.


Supreme Court Opinion Summaries (9/2551)

Note concerning Thailand Supreme court opinions: Thailand is a civil law jurisdiction that also has elements of the common law system. Accordingly, the principle law sources are acts, statutes and regulations. However, published Supreme court decisions are an important part of the legal development of Thailand and are frequently used as a secondary authority. (Summaries sponsored by Chaninat & Leeds)


9/2551 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion (No. 7680) 2008
Mr. Chaowalit Isarangkoon Na Ayutthaya vs. Mrs. Chawewan Isarangkoon Na Ayutthaya or Pongsuwan and Party

Re: Handles Marital Property, The Rights of filing a lawsuit

The Plaintiff filed a complaint that both the Plaintiff and the First Defendant used to be a married couple, but, now, both have registered for divorce.  During the time of marriage, the First Defendant subsequently sold on consignment the land of title deeds no. 16480 for 250,000.-Baht and title deeds no. 1589 for 560,000.-Baht  to the Second Defendant.  The Plaintiff did not give any consent as the First Defendant forged his power of attorney, and the Second Defendant was not act in good faith at the time entering to the Juristic act.  The Plaintiff realized these matters in February2002; therefore to revoke the juristic acts upon sale consignment between the First Defendant and the Second Defendant, and between the Plaintiff and the Second Defendant.

The First Defendant was in default of answer.

The Second Defendant filed an answer that he purchased the two disputed land with consignment when the First Defendant showed him the Power of Attorney undersigned by the Plaintiff allowing the First Defendant to sell both lands, therefore, the Second Defendant Entered into a Thailand purchase in good faith and had paid for the prices.  The Plaintiff filed this lawsuit later than one year from the day when the ground of the revocation is known, so the Plaintiff has no right to file the suit.  The Second Defendant asked the court to dismiss the case.

The Trial Court dismissed the case, waived the Court and the Lawyer fees.

The appellate court region 5, Juvenile and Family Section, affirmed the Trial Court’s decision, but ruled that the Trial Court has to reimburse the undue Trial Court fees of 20,050.-Baht to the Plaintiff and waived the Appellate Court fees.

The Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court hold that “Fact-finding was concluded when the Plaintiff and the Second Defendant concurred in the court procedure report, dated May 3, 2005- attached document no. 102 that while the First Defendant was still the wife of the Plaintiff, the First Defendant sold the premise and the land of title deeds no. 16480 and  the land of title deeds no. 1589 with consignment to the Second Defendant via Power of Attorney with false signature of the Plaintiff.  And the Second Defendant purchased the lands in good faith and paid the cost of the lands.

The Supreme Court has to adjudicate problem appealed by the Plaintiff, whether the Plaintiff has his rights to file the complaint for cancelling the juristic act on the consignment sale of the two disputed land.  Although, the way that the First Defendant engaged in Juristic act of consignment sale with the Second Defendant by making use of the Power of Attorney with forged signature of the Plaintiff is deemed as acts without the Plaintiff’s consent.  But, because the Plaintiff concurred that at the time entering to the Juristic act, the Second Defendant, or the third person was acted in good faith and had already paid for the cost.  The Appellate Court region 5 ruled that the Plaintiff had no right to file a complaint to revoke the juristic act on the consignment sale of the two disputed lands.  The decision was sounded.  The Plaintiff was also request for revoking the consignment sale on his Thailand marital property portion, excluded from the portion shared by the First Defendant.  The Supreme Court ruled that according to the Thai Civil and Commercial Code Section 1480 paragraph 1, if any significant Juristic Act engaged by the third person of dishonest and did not pay for the cost, such Juristic Act shall be wholly revoked.  All the property subject to the obligation shall be restored as marital property.  The revocation is not only fall upon the portion shared by the spouse, who had not given consent to such Juristic Act.  In reverse, if the third person acted in good faith and has counter-paid the cost like the way the Second Defendant has done and the juristic act will completely irrevocable.

The Supreme Court affirmed and waived the Supreme Courts fees.



© Copyright Thailand Law Forum, All Rights Reserved
(except where the work is the individual works of the authors as noted)