Historical Land and House Reform:

As a result of history, there are overseas Vietnamese who used to own or whose family used to own property in Vietnam that was lost after the war.  They ask whether it is possible to recover the previously owned property.  This article addresses the rights of overseas Vietnamese to recover land and houses previously owned by them or their families.

On April 14, 1977, the Government launched the so-called “Socialist Land and House Reform” policy (“Land and House Reform”) in the southern provinces of Vietnam by promulgating Decision 111.  Generally speaking, Land and House Reform was aimed at “nationalizing”, “confiscating” or “managing” the land and houses of five categories of persons or organizations.  The land and houses which were “nationalized” or “confiscated” by the State came under State ownership.  Theoretically, land and houses which were managed by the State might not mean that the State became the owner of the land and the houses. It seems, however, that “State ownership” and “State management” in this context and in practice were not different, even though the legal documents created a difference.  Whether the State confiscated or undertook to manage a house or land, in practice, its registered owner retained no real rights any longer.  Here, “to manage” unofficially meant “to own”.  The State took the action outlined below, and that action had an impact.

  • The State nationalized land and houses which had been leased to other people by so-called “compradors, landlords, bourgeois, political and economic criminals, and reactionaries” (“landlords”).  If the land and houses were leased by people other than the people so described, and if the land and houses exceeded the owner’s actual residential needs, then the State managed them;
  • The State managed land and houses legally owned by absentee owners (these are people who abandoned their land and houses before or during the final days of the war).  If the abandoned land and houses were being occupied by the absentee owners’ close relatives (parents, husband/wife and/or children) with or without the absentee owners’ authorization, the State allowed those relatives to continue to stay in the house, but it did not allow them to sell the house.  If the land and houses were occupied by people other than the absentee owners’ close relatives, the State still managed them and reserved only enough space within the house for those people to stay on, or the State “arranged” other space for them to live;
  • The State managed the land and houses of religious organizations, which were not being used for purposes of worship;
  • The State managed the land and houses owned by senior officials of the former Saigon government; and
  • The State managed the land and houses owned by foreigners.

All the land and houses subject to Land and House Reform were either used for public purposes, allocated to State organizations and/or State officials or were leased to other people by the State.  

Land-use rights and house ownership after Land and House Reform and before promulgation of Land Law 2004:

In 1991, the Government issued Decision 297 stipulating that all land and houses which had been “managed” by the State under Land and House Reform would revert to the ownership of the State on July 1, 1991.  This meant that any land and houses which had, thus far, been under State management would become the property of the State on July 1, 1991.  “State management” became “State ownership”.  No claim regarding private ownership of those houses would be recognized.  

However, there was an exception to Decision 297.  That is, although Decision 111 stated the types of land and houses that would be managed by the State, the State was not always efficient enough to know every house, or every parcel of land on which it stood and which qualified for management.  That is, the State originally “missed” some land and houses.  So, on July 1, 1991 all houses that the State “missed” were considered to be privately owned by the real owners.  The Decision did not touch on the situation where the State “missed” the land and houses of a person who had already left Vietnam--the absentee owner (see discussion below).

Also, according to Decision 297, people who owned a house could sell it or authorize other people to take care of it.  In case the owner authorized another person to take care of his house, he would be considered to be the legal owner of the house once he returned to Vietnam to reside.  If the house was subject to Land and House Reform but the State “missed” it, the owner had to give it to the State as a condition for leaving, and, in such case, the owner could not, as part of his preparation for leaving, authorize another person to take care of his house.

In respect of people who owned a house but left Vietnam illegally (ie, boat people): (1) if their house was occupied by people other than any of their close relatives, including their parents, husband/wife and/or children, the house became nationalized,  (2) if their house was occupied by any of their close relatives, including their parents, husband/wife and/or children, the State would let those people own (possess) either part or all of it on a case-by-case basis.  If they were permitted to own part or the entire house, they would have all rights (including ownership rights) in the permitted part of the house or the entire house.  In the case of people who owned a house, but left Vietnam illegally and later returned to reside in Vietnam, the State agreed to “create conditions for them to have a space to reside”.

Land-use rights and house ownership after the promulgation of Land Law 2004:

Together with the issuance of Land Law 2004, the National Assembly released Resolution 23. It deals with the houses and land that were managed by the State for use during the course of implementation of house and land management policies and of the so-called “socialist transformation policies” which were in existence before July 1, 1991.

Resolution 23 states that the State shall not re-consider its policies on house and land management which were promulgated before July 1, 1991. Consequently, the State would complete the legal procedures regarding the transfer of categories of houses and land, which had been managed and arranged for use by the State under Land and House Reform, to ownership by the entire Vietnamese people.

Pursuant to Resolution 23, the Standing Committee of the National Assembly adopted Resolution 755, setting forth guidelines on how certain outstanding cases will be settled. 

Of particular interest, Resolution 755 provided a number of possibilities for people to have their property restored or to obtain compensation for their property in some very limited instances, as follows:

  • Land and houses that were subject to Land and House Reform but for which the Government, in fact, failed to issue a decision to manage.
  • Land and houses that were intended to be managed by the Government and for which the Government issued a decision to manage, but until April 17, 2005--when Resolution 755 came into effect--the Government had neither managed nor allocated them to others.
  • Land and houses that the Government requisitioned for a defined period, and that period has now passed.
  • Land and houses that were subject to implementation of Land and House Reform, and which are being occupied by a private person, with a part of the land and/or house set aside by the Government for the owner.  The portion set aside is reclaimable.

The above regulations do not speak specifically to the case of overseas Vietnamese.  

On July 27, 2006 the National Assembly’s Standing Committee adopted Resolution 1037 on civil transactions relating to residential houses established prior to July 1991 involving overseas Vietnamese. According to Resolution 1037, there is a possibility for overseas Vietnamese to claim ownership or the value of their house in the following situations:

  • The house has been leased or lent to another person by an overseas Vietnamese who was the owner of the house before July 1991;
  • The overseas Vietnamese owner authorized another person to manage the house;
  • The house was purchased by an overseas Vietnamese before July 1991, but the transfer of ownership of the house has not been completed;
  • Two houses were exchanged but formalities on the transfer of ownership of the houses has not been completed; or
  • An overseas Vietnamese inherited or was given the house by another person.

The term “another person” includes individual persons, governmental organizations or non-governmental organizations, and the above transactions must have been conducted before July 1, 1991.

There are procedures to follow and documents to be presented in order to claim the ownership or the value of the house.

On August 24, 1998, that is, before Resolution 1037, the National Assembly’s Standing Committee adopted Resolution 58. It addressed residential housing transactions which took place prior to July 1991 and which did not involve overseas Vietnamese. The existence of Resolution 58 and later Resolution 1037, side by side, has confused some local courts. The Supreme People’s Court, therefore, on June 28, 2011, issued Official Document 91 (“OD 91”) in order to guide the application of Resolution 58 and Resolution 1037.

According to OD 91, Resolution 1037 only regulates civil housing transactions which took place prior to July 1, 1991 and in which an overseas Vietnamese participated, also prior to July 1, 1991. Resolution 58 also regulates civil housing transactions which took place prior to July 1, 1991, and in which an overseas Vietnamese participated. However, under Resolution 58, participation of the overseas Vietnamese must have taken place on or after July 1, 1991.

The regulations discussed in (c), (d) and (e) above, continued to apply even after Land Law 2014 came into effect.

A typical case involving house ownership by an overseas Vietnamese:

Consider the situation, for example, of an overseas Vietnamese who owned a house but left Vietnam before April 14, 1977, bringing with him the ownership documents of the house.  Other people--non-relatives--have continued to live in the house.  He wants to know whether he can recover the house.

Since he left before April 14, 1977, his house would have been considered the “house of an absentee owner” under the regulations of Land and House Reform.  The fact that “other people” are living in his house can be interpreted as follows:

  • The State has been managing the house but leases it to those people in the form of a lease.  In this case, the overseas Vietnamese cannot claim back his house because the house has become State-owned since July 1, 1991 according to Decision 297.  If the State has been managing his house, then his original ownership documents no longer have validity.  As a result of Decision 297, that house, as from 1991, belongs to the State.  If so, the State probably issued a decision to manage the house and then leased the house to the people who are living in the house; or
  • Although “other people” are living in the house, the State “missed” the house.  So his ownership of the house is recognized by the State in compliance with Decision 297 and, according to Resolution 755, the State “will not implement the management in accordance with regulations of previous policies”, and he will be “considered for issuance of an ownership certificate and land use rights certificate” if he returns and resides in Vietnam.  If the State “missed” the house as described above, the house still belongs to its owner according to Decision 297.
  • If the overseas Vietnamese owner can prove that the house was his house, and that before July 1991, one of the transactions described in Resolution 1037 mentioned above took place, then it is possible for the overseas Vietnamese owner to reclaim the house. If there is no written contract reflecting the transaction, the overseas Vietnamese owner, of course bears the burden of proof. If the State recognizes his ownership, the original ownership documents of the overseas Vietnamese still have validity, and they are important documents for him to use to try to recover his house or to claim compensation or in some cases to be allocated another house or another piece of land.  


From the standpoint of overseas Vietnamese who wish to recover a house or land which they or their family previously owned, the possibility to do so will continue to rely on very limited circumstances. Consider also that many of these properties have been sold or rezoned or redeveloped.  We expect that pursuing such a claim will be time-consuming and that the outcome remains unpredictable.