Subject: Land ownership – Eviction – Tort
Plaintiffs: Mr. A (1st Plaintiff), Mr. B (2nd Plaintiff)
Defendant: Mrs. D

Plaintiffs filed: The Plaintiffs claimed to be owners of a land plot (Title Deed No. 33333) with a commercial building (No. 603), and had allowed the Defendant to use it for business purposes. Later, they withdrew their permission and asked the Defendant to vacate, but she refused. Plaintiffs sought eviction, return of the building in good condition, and damages of 4,000 THB per month from the date of the lawsuit until the property is returned.

The Defendant counterclaimed, asserting that in 1983, she bought another building (No. 601) on adjacent land (Title Deed No. 11111), and had lived with Mr. S (the Plaintiffs' father) as husband and wife (without legal marriage). In 1988, she purchased the disputed property (No. 603), but Mr. S asked to register it under the Plaintiffs' names temporarily, with the promise to transfer it to her later. She claimed the Plaintiffs had no right to evict her and demanded the transfer of ownership to her.

The Plaintiffs denied the counterclaim, asserting that Mr. S bought the disputed property as a gift for them and allowed the Defendant to use it because she was Mr. S’s partner.

The Court First Instance Judgments: Trial Court: Dismissed Plaintiffs' claim. Ordered Plaintiffs to transfer half of the ownership to Defendant.

Appeals Court: Upheld the Trial Court’s ruling.

Plaintiffs filed for Supreme Court review.

The Defendant presented evidence that she initially rented the commercial building No. 601. Later, she cohabited with Mr. S., the father of both Plaintiffs, as husband and wife without registering a marriage. In 1983 (B.E. 2526), the Defendant purchased the land title deed No. 11111 along with building No. 601 by selling 100 baht's worth of gold given to her by Mr. S. and obtaining a loan from a bank. In 1988 (B.E. 2531), the Defendant entered into a purchase agreement for the land title deed No. 33333 along with building No. 603. However, on the date of the transfer of ownership, Mr. S. requested that the property be registered in the names of the two Plaintiffs instead. After the transfer, the Defendant possessed both the said property and building by connecting the wall between buildings No. 601 and No. 603, expanding her duck noodle business to operate in both units. The Defendant had continuously possessed the disputed property since 1988 without opposition.

The Plaintiffs argued that the Defendant was Mr. S.’s wife, and Mr. S. had purchased the land with title deed No. 11111 and building No. 601 in 1983 and invested in the duck noodle business operated by the Defendant. In 1988, the Plaintiffs discovered a notice to sell land and building No. 603 and wished to purchase it for rental purposes. Mr. S. asked the Defendant to contact the seller and place a deposit of 500,000 baht. Before the title transfer date, the Plaintiffs and Mr. S. purchased two cashier's cheques totaling 4,000,000 baht—2,000,000 baht from the Plaintiffs and 2,000,000 baht from Mr. S. On the date of ownership transfer, although the Defendant was present at the land office, she did not object to the property being registered in the names of the Plaintiffs. Afterward, the Plaintiffs allowed the Defendant to rent the building for 10,000 baht per month. The Defendant paid rent for about four years. Subsequently, rent was no longer collected as Mr. S. requested leniency.

Supreme Court’s Consideration:The issue in dispute is whether the judgment of the Court of Appeal affirming the Trial Court's ruling was correct. The Defendant, as the first party to present evidence, claimed that she purchased the land and building No. 601 by obtaining a bank loan and receiving 1,000,000 baht and 100 baht weight of gold as a dowry from Mr. S. She operated a duck noodle business, which Mr. S. managed by visiting the shop daily and depositing the daily earnings of not less than 10,000 baht into his bank account. On January 9, 1988, the Defendant negotiated to purchase the disputed land and building No. 603 for 4,500,000 baht and placed a deposit of 500,000 baht. The remaining 4,000,000 baht was paid on the transfer date and originated from the duck noodle business, which Mr. S. had collected and deposited into his bank account. The Defendant asserted that these business earnings were sufficient to purchase the property.

The Plaintiffs presented that they discovered the property for sale and asked Mr. S. to have the Defendant act as their agent in placing the 500,000 baht deposit since she was familiar with the seller. Mr. S. provided the deposit amount. The remaining 4,000,000 baht came from the Plaintiffs (2,000,000 baht) and Mr. S. (2,000,000 baht). As the family is of Chinese descent, it is customary for the father to manage all finances. Therefore, the cashier’s cheques were issued under Mr. S.’s name alone, not the Defendant’s. Mr. S.’s share was a gift to the Plaintiffs. The Defendant had no ownership or financial contribution toward the purchase of the disputed property.

Since both parties' evidence contradicted one another, the Court relied on testimony from a neutral party—Mr. S., who was the Defendant’s husband and the Plaintiffs’ father.

Mr. S. testified that he contributed over 1,000,000 baht and 100 baht weight of gold to help the Defendant purchase building No. 601. She borrowed an additional 1,000,000 baht from the bank and registered ownership in her name. As for the duck noodle business, the Defendant kept the income in a drawer; Mr. S. never took the money. He denied the Defendant’s claim that he collected the shop’s income daily for 18 years. In 1988, he merely reviewed finances with her once due to low profit. Prior to that, he had never intervened in business finances. At the time of purchasing building No. 603, the Defendant had outstanding debts, including a 1,000,000 baht bank loan and informal debts (lottery, rotating savings groups). After the purchase, she requested to rent the property from the Plaintiffs, and Mr. S. conveyed this request, which the Plaintiffs accepted. Mr. S. further testified that the Plaintiffs wanted to buy building No. 603 for business or rental purposes. They asked the Defendant to place the deposit on their behalf. The 4,000,000 baht in cashier’s cheques came half from the Plaintiffs and half from Mr. S. On the date of ownership registration at the land office, the Defendant was present and aware that the property would be registered in the Plaintiffs’ names and did not object.

Supreme Court’s Conclusion: If the Defendant had contributed to the purchase price or if the funds used came from her business (allegedly managed by Mr. S.), a reasonable person in her position would have objected to registering the property solely in the Plaintiffs’ names or, at the very least, demanded co-ownership. The Defendant's claim that she allowed the Plaintiffs to register ownership only temporarily, at Mr. S.’s request, because their adopted daughter, Uravadee, was still a minor, is not reasonable. Her stated trust in the Plaintiffs, as they were her husband’s children, is not credible.

Additionally, in a recorded conversation (admitted by both parties as genuine), the Defendant never objected or claimed ownership or co-ownership of the disputed land or building. Therefore, the Court found that the Plaintiffs’ evidence was more credible and outweighed the Defendant’s.

The Defendant failed to rebut the legal presumption and did not meet the burden of proof required to establish her claimed ownership.

Since the Plaintiffs had lawfully requested the Defendant to vacate the premises, and the Defendant refused, causing loss of use, the Plaintiffs are entitled to damages. The requested monthly amount of 4,000 baht, starting from the filing date, is reasonable given the property’s location in a prime business district in Bangkok. The Defendant did not prove that the amount was excessive.

Thus, the Supreme Court disagreed with the Court of Appeal’s and Trial Court’s decisions, which had dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claim and ordered them to transfer half of the ownership to the Defendant per the Defendant’s counterclaim.

The Supreme Court  Judgment: The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions: Ordered the Defendant and her associates to vacate the land (title deed No. 15605) and deliver possession of building No. 603 to the Plaintiffs in good condition. Ordered the Defendant to pay damages at the rate of 4,000 baht per month from the day following the filing date until the Defendant and her associates vacate and return the property. Dismissed the Defendant’s counterclaim. Costs of all three courts are to be borne equally (each party bears its own).