@.dr.intobesa.2: "มหาหมี Maha Mee", Vice Chairman of the Dhamma Army Foundation, clearly pointed out to reporters that, "The problem with this temple stems from the year 2533 [1990], when Uncle "เฮียง Hieng", who was a village headman and a person with a charitable mind and the intention to establish a temple, dedicated his land—amounting to over 21 rai, or even more, consisting of two combined plots: the larger plot being a title deed and the other being a Sor Kor 1 [possession certificate] and possessory rights. The temple began construction in 2535 [1992]. Uncle "เฮียง Hieng" passed away in 2534 [1991]—look at the timeline, huh?—and the temple finished its establishment process as a temple in 2541 [1998]. What does this mean? It means applying for permission to construct and applying for permission to establish are two different steps, you see. Constructing a temple involves two things: First, applying for permission to construct. Second, applying for permission to establish. Once establishment is successful, it attains the status of a juristic person under the Sangha Act. As a juristic person, when people made offerings from 2533 [1990] up to 2541 [1998], did those who made offerings before passing away during the interim period—when it had not yet attained the aforementioned juristic person status—revert to being the property of the heirs or the estate? No, they did not. Because for this matter, we do not apply the Civil and Commercial Code; we do not apply worldly laws. Instead, we apply ecclesiastical law, which is one of public law. Ecclesiastical law is the Sangha Act B.E. 2505 [1962], amended in B.E. 2535 [1992], which was designed to protect the religious assets of the temple. The term 'religious assets of the temple' refers to the land where the temple is located, monastic land (dhonisamghai), and benefits in the form of money or other advantages. It was designed for protection in a manner similar to public roads—when anyone, for example, has a piece of land and says that the villagers have no path to pass through, dedicating this exact land to be a road for villagers to pass through, just by speaking, just by words leaving the property owner's mouth, and officials acknowledging it, it has legal effect. Therefore, as it appeared in the news, in the judgments of the Court of First Instance, the Appeal Court, and the Supreme Court in this case, where the heirs sued the temple and lost to the temple, the court ruled on a very good principle that serves as the governing rule for adjudication. The court stated that the fact that "นายเฮียง Mr. Hieng" dedicated the land since 2533 [1990], and the temple was successfully established in 2541 [1998]—even though the temple was not yet a juristic person, and even though "นายเฮียง Mr. Hieng" passed away before the temple construction was completed—the said land became state property. It uses the term 'state property,' but not for public utility use; rather, it is for the purpose of establishing a temple in Buddhism. You see? It is clear. Therefore, the principle of public utility use and the principle of use for establishing a temple are the same principle. Thus, "นายเฮียง Mr. Hieng"'s rights lapsed since 2533 [1990], except that ownership fell to the temple starting in 2541 [1998], but the temple had the right to use and transfer the area since 2533 [1990]. Therefore, regarding this matter, whoever—whether lawyers, anyone else, the heirs, or the heirs' representatives—says that no transfer was made and currently the title deed is still in his name, that is not correct. Whether a transfer is made or not is merely a secondary issue because Section 525 of the Civil and Commercial Code states that when private parties make a contract for the sale of land or transfer it, two things are required: First, the contract must be in writing, such as a sales contract, a gift contract, a delivery contract, etc. Second, the contract must be registered with the land official. This is Section 525.

咽頭べさ (Dr.Intobesa)

Open In TikTok:

Region: TH

Sunday 16 August 2026 07:41:12 GMT