Section 357: Judgment substituting a declaration of intent

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 4713/2566 (2023)

   Where completion of a court-ordered juristic act depends on a land official registering a change on the title deed, the judgment creditor may, under Section 357 paragraph one, ask the court to order the registration; the court may direct the land official to cancel a registered gift and register transfer of ownership accordingly.

   The court held the plaintiff need not first take the judgment in place of the defendant's declaration of intent before subdividing the land. Because the execution would be complete only when the land official registered the change on the deed, the plaintiff as judgment creditor could ask the court to order registration under Section 357 paragraph one, so the court properly directed the land official to cancel the gift registration and register the transfer.

2. Supreme Court Judgment No. 850/2565 (2022)

   A party may apply under Section 357 paragraphs one and two for the court's judgment to be taken in place of the judgment debtor's declaration of intent, or for the land official to register a transfer under a settlement agreement; the Amendment Act No. 30 of B.E. 2560 does not affect execution procedures already valid, so it applies even to a settlement made before it took effect.

   Defendant 2 was entitled to ask the court to take its judgment or order in place of the declaration of intent of defendants 1 and 3, as heirs and estate administrators, or to order the land official to register transfer of the disputed land under the settlement agreement. Although Section 357 was enacted by the Amendment Act No. 30 of B.E. 2560, effective 5 September 2560, after the 19 April 2559 settlement, the court held the Act does not affect execution procedures already valid.

3. Supreme Court Judgment No. 2674/2565 (2022)

   Under section 271 the court that tried and decided the case at first instance is the court with power over execution, so a motion about execution of a judgment of any level of court belongs to that court. Section 357 paragraph one governs execution where the judgment or order requires the judgment debtor to perform a juristic act and the judgment may be taken in place of the debtor's declaration of intent, and a judgment creditor may properly move the court of first instance for that relief. But such a motion is not one the Code allows to be made ex parte. Section 21(2) forbids the court to make an order on it without first giving the other party an opportunity to object, so an order granted without serving the motion on the judgment debtor is a failure to comply with a provision intended to secure a just and orderly hearing, and will be quashed.

   The judgment creditor moved the court of first instance to take the judgment in place of the two defendants' declaration of intent, the judgment having ordered them to perform a juristic act. The Supreme Court accepted that the creditor was entitled to make such a motion and that the court of first instance had power to decide it, since section 271 gives the trial court power over execution of the judgments of every level of court and section 357 paragraph one provides for execution of this kind. But it held that the motion is not one the Code permits to be decided on one side only: section 21(2) forbids an order without first giving the other party an opportunity to object. Because the trial court had granted the order without serving the motion on the defendants, the proceeding did not comply with a provision intended to secure a just hearing, and that order was quashed.

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.