Thailand Law Forum Thailand Law Forum  
 
Feature Articles :

History of Cannabis
  and Anti-Marijuana
  Laws in Thailand



Thailand’s Notable
  Criminal Extradition
  Cases


Guide for Tourists
  to Laws in Thailand



Neither Free nor Fair:
  Burma’s Sham Elections



Sex Laws in Thailand:
  Part 1



Renewable Energy
  in Thailand



Transsexuals and
  Thai Law



Foreign Mafia in
  Thailand


 

Supreme Court Miscellaneous Slip Opinion 2550

 
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)
 

 

Thailand Supreme Court Opinion (No. 677) 2007
Mrs. Payoun Keawketthong et al. vs. Mr. Kamol Tanangsanakul by acting representatives Mr. Koukert Tanangsanakul et al.

Re: Adverse Possession of Land

Adverse possession of the Thailand real estate of another person, permitted according to section 1382 of the Civil and Commercial Code, is subject to possession of land with a title deed only and based on the condition that the trespasser must have resided on the land for a continuous period of 10 years or more.

Government authorities issued a title deed for the land of the five plaintiffs for the first time on 8 May 1996. The defendants (who had resided on the land for a period of time) filed a counterclaim on 6 Nov 1997, but were not entitled to ownership of the land, as they had possessed the land for a period of less than 10 years (from the issuing of the plaintiff's title deed).

The defendants cannot be granted ownership of land by calculating the period of land possession from the period prior to the issuing of the title deed, as the adverse possession of another person's land, according to law, is subject to land with a title deed.

 

 

2550 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion (No. 257) 2007
Mrs.Thidatip Srirun vs. Mr. Lerts Srirun

Re: Divorce

The plaintiff and the defendant live in the same home, yet not in a husband-wife relationship, not because they cannot live together as husband and wife, but because the plaintiff understood that the defendant (the plaintiff's husband) and the plaintiff's mother defrauded the plaintiff by procuring her house and farmland through deception. The plaintiff and the defendant live in the same house although their way of life is kept separate from each other. This mentality is acceptable to both parties. Therefore, the fact that the defendant took the eldest child to Bangkok to sell clothes is not considered a ground for divorce based on abandonment on the part of the defendant or an action offensive to the husband-wife relationship under section 1516(4)(6) of the Civil and Commercial Code.

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     

Chaninat & Leeds offered support in translating Supreme Court case law. Chaninat & Leeds is a Thailand Law Firm practicing family and business law. Chaninat & Leeds specializes in Thailand criminal defense lawyer. Chaninat & Leeds is managed by an American attorney who specializes in immigration with a focus on family visas including prenuptial agreement Thailand. For any submissions, comments, or questions, e-mail the Thailand Law Forum at: info@fourladiesforum.com Please read our Disclaimer.

 

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