Global Vietnam Lawyers would like to introduce our valued readers to an article by Mr. Tran Thanh Tung titled “Property rights cannot be overridden by unsupported administrative assumptions” published in The Saigon Times, 16-2026 (1.844) on April 16, 2026.
***
A legal perspective on the confiscation of 42 Ochna trees in Con Dao
In recent days, public attention has been drawn to the case in which the Forest Protection Unit of Con Dao National Park imposed penalties and confiscated 42 ochna trees on the grounds that their origin was “unverified.” From a legal standpoint, this case raises a serious question: can administrative authorities impose sanctions and confiscate citizens’ property solely because the owners are unable to prove its origin, and is such action consistent with the constitutional and civil law principles in respect of property rights?
The application of sanctions and confiscation measures in this instance warrants careful reconsideration, as it risks undermining the legal presumption of ownership—a fundamental principle of a rule-of-law state.
Property right – a constitutional right that cannot be arbitrarily restricted
Ownership right—the right of an individual to possess, use, and dispose of their property—is among the most fundamental and inviolable civil rights. Article 32 of the 2013 Constitution clearly stipulates: “Everyone has the right to ownership of lawful income, savings, housing, means of living, means of production, and capital contributions in enterprises or other economic organizations. Private ownership and inheritance rights are protected by law.”
This provision is not merely declaratory; it represents a supreme constitutional principle within Vietnam’s legal system. The State bears the obligation to protect property rights, and cannot place citizens in a position where they must continuously prove ownership to public authorities in order to enjoy those rights.
Clause 3 of Article 32 further provides that the State may only requisition or expropriate property in cases of absolute necessity for national defense, security, or national interest, and must provide compensation at market value.
Accordingly, confiscation of property—an even more severe measure than requisition—may only be applied when there is clear legal evidence that the property is unlawful or constitutes material evidence of a legal violation. If confiscation is based solely on the fact that an item’s origin is “unverified,” without proof of any unlawful conduct, this poses a serious risk to constitutionally protected property rights.
The presumption of good faith possession under the Civil Code
A core principle often overlooked in administrative cases involving property is set out in Article 184 of the 2015 Civil Code: “A possessor is presumed to be in good faith; anyone who claims otherwise bears the burden of proof.”
This is a foundational principle of modern civil law. In other words, a person in possession of property is presumed to be acting lawfully, and the burden of proof lies with the party alleging that such possession is unlawful. That burden cannot be shifted onto the possessor. Clause 2 of Article 184 of the Civil Code further emphasizes that “In the event of a dispute over rights to property, the possessor is presumed to hold such rights. Any party disputing the possessor must prove that the possessor does not have such rights.”
Accordingly, if the authorities assert that the 42 ochna trees are of unlawful origin, it is incumbent upon the State to substantiate that claim—for example, by demonstrating that the trees were illegally harvested from forests in violation of the Law on Forestry. Requiring citizens to prove the opposite, and penalizing them for failing to do so, runs counter to the legal logic underpinning the Civil Code.
In that context, confiscating property without first establishing that (i) it is evidence of a violation, or (ii) it was illegally harvested from protected forests, or (iii) it falls within a category prohibited from circulation, may be regarded as an infringement of property rights protected by civil law.
The risk of disrupting the legal framework for property rights and causing social instability
The greater concern lies not merely in the 42 ochna trees themselves, but in the legal consequences should such handling become the norm.
If authorities are able to confiscate property solely because citizens cannot prove its origin, then in practice, all property in circulation would be exposed to the risk of confiscation. It would be unreasonable to require farmers to prove that each grain of rice comes from the crops they cultivated, that ornamental plants grew from seedlings they nurtured, or that calves were born from the cattle they raised. In such a scenario, property rights would shift from “being protected” to effectively “applying for a permit to exist”. Citizens would be left in a constant state of uncertainty—at any moment, authorities could enter their homes, demand proof of the origin of their assets, and, in the absence of sufficient documentation, proceed with confiscation.
Property rights are a fundamental civil right, forming the legal foundation upon which a “prosperous people” can advance toward a “strong nation.” In a society where property rights are not adequately safeguarded, no assets are truly secure. The inevitable consequences would include stagnation in civil transactions, erosion of trust in the law, a rise in disputes, and ultimately, disruption to the system of property rights.
From a constitutional and civil law perspective, the sanctioning and confiscation of 42 ochna trees solely on the grounds of “unverified origin” raises serious legal questions regarding the constitutionality and legality of this administrative decision.
Protecting forests is necessary—but protecting the Constitution is even more imperative.
