Turkish Court of Cassation’s Unification Ruling on Good Faith Third Parties and Land Registry Reliance in Construction-for-Land Share Agreements
Introduction
One of the fundamental principles of the Turkish Civil Code (“TCC”) is the principle of reliance on the land registry. This principle plays a decisive role in the acquisition and protection of real rights. In practice, construction agreements in exchange for land share are frequently encountered. In such contracts, following the transfer of ownership (in simpler terms, the title deed) by the landowner to the contractor, the contractor often sells or encumbers the property to third parties. A recurring legal issue arises when the agreement is later found to be invalid or retroactively terminated: whether such third parties could have acquired rights in good faith and whether such rights may be protected.
The Judgment of the Grand General Assembly for the Unification of Jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation, dated 16 May 2025 and published in the Official Gazette on 18 July 2025, constitutes a turning point that resolves this long-standing legal controversy. With this ruling, it was acknowledged that third parties who acquire rights relying on the land registry may benefit from protection under Article 1023 of the TCC, provided they acted in good faith. However, should it be proven on a case-by-case basis that good faith was absent, the relevant property may revert to the landowner.
This article discusses the legal reasoning behind the decision and its potential implications for legal practice.
The Subject of the Dispute
In these types of contracts, it is common for the landowner to transfer shares of the land to the contractor before construction is completed. The contractor then sells these shares or establishes real rights on them in favor of third parties. If the contractor fails to perform their obligations, the landowner seeks retroactive termination and files a lawsuit for cancellation and reregistration of the title.
Under the previously established jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation’s 6th Civil Chamber (and the now-defunct 15th and 23rd Civil Chambers), such third parties were considered successors of the contractor. Therefore, they could not invoke good faith protection under TCC Article 1023. The transfer to the contractor was deemed to be in the nature of an advance, and the retroactive termination of the agreement would invalidate the legal basis for the transfer, rendering it null and void. In such cases, whether third parties acquired ownership or mortgage rights in good faith by relying on the land registry became the main issue of dispute. As a result, the 6th Civil Chamber requested unification of jurisprudence.
In the new ruling, however, this interpretation was set aside in favor of the principles of transparency and reliance inherent in the land registry system. It was held that acquisitions by third parties acting in good faith within the scope of TCC Articles 3 and 1023 must be protected.
Article 1023 of the TCC and the Principle of Reliance on the Land Registry
Under the TCC, the acquisition of immovable property requires registration with the land registry. Similarly, real rights are established through such registration and take effect in accordance with their rank.
It is universally accepted that the land registry reflects real rights truthfully and publicly. Under Article 1020 of the TCC, anyone with a legitimate interest is entitled to examine the land registry. Those who fail to do so are considered to have acted without due diligence and cannot later claim they were unaware of a recorded entry.
TCC Article 1023 provides that "The acquisition of ownership or another real right by a third party who relies in good faith on a registered entry in the land register shall be protected."
This provision aims to balance legal certainty in transactions and the protection of individual rights. A third party who believes, in good faith, that the person registered in the land registry is the true owner, and who could not have known otherwise even by exercising due care, shall have their acquisition protected.
According to the decision, protection under Article 1023 is subject to the following conditions:
- Only third parties may benefit from this protection. The person in whose name a wrongful registration was made, and their universal successors, are excluded.
- The acquisition must be based on the registry.
- The right acquired must be a real (in rem) right.
- The third party must have acted in good faith at the time of registration (or, more precisely, when the application for registration was entered into the registry's daily journal).
- All other legal requirements for valid acquisition must be met. If the legal basis for the transfer is invalid or the person requesting registration lacked legal capacity or authority, the acquisition is not protected.
As emphasized in the decision, a third party who duly acquires property from a registered contractor—having relied on the registry and exercised the required diligence—must have their acquisition upheld.
The burden of proving bad faith rests with the landowner. While good faith is presumed, the landowner may attempt to rebut this presumption by pointing to certain factual indicators—such as family or close ties between the contractor and transferee, suspiciously low purchase prices, or rapid successive transfers—to demonstrate the transferee acted in bad faith.
Change in Practice and Its Implications
The decision clearly states that the previous jurisprudence of the 6th Civil Chamber—under which good faith claims of third parties were categorically dismissed and the property was returned to the landowner—was inconsistent with the principles of relativity of obligations, transparency of the land registry, and the protection of good faith.
As such, if a contractor sells land shares or independent units to third parties or grants mortgages after having been registered as owner, and the contract is later terminated or declared invalid, the good faith claims of third parties must be examined. Where good faith is not disproven, the third party’s acquired rights must be protected.
This marks a fundamental shift in legal practice. Landowners who bring cancellation and re-registration lawsuits will now bear the burden of proving the transferee’s bad faith.
The Court also noted that landowners have other legal tools to protect their interests. For example, they may secure their position by registering a mortgage over the shares transferred to the contractor or annotating the construction agreement to the registry. The Court emphasized the importance of legal certainty and public trust in transactions, upholding good faith acquisitions as a matter of social order and legal predictability.
Notably, the decision extensively references academic opinion. Legal scholars such as Prof. Dr. Şahin Akıncı, Prof. Dr. Çiğdem Kırca, and Prof. Dr. Zafer Kahraman have long argued that the invalidity of the contract should not automatically affect third parties and that the principle of reliance on the registry must prevail.
Conclusion
The 16 May 2025 Judgment of the Grand General Assembly for the Unification of Jurisprudence introduces a significant shift in Turkish jurisprudence on construction contracts in exchange for land share. It establishes that where such contracts are terminated or declared invalid, third parties who acquire rights from the contractor are not automatically required to return the property to the landowner. Instead, TCC Article 1023 protects their acquisition if they made it in good faith. Only if bad faith is proven may the title revert to the landowner.
This approach aligns with contemporary legal systems that prioritize legal certainty and reliance on the land registry. It also reflects fundamental civil law principles, such as the relativity of obligations and the transparency of property records.
While this new jurisprudence will alter the burden of proof in disputes between landowners and third-party transferees, it will also encourage greater diligence and foresight in contractual arrangements -without undermining the legal security of honest market participants.
Ultimately, the ruling constitutes a landmark development in both real property law and construction contract practice.
All rights of this article are reserved. This article may not be used, reproduced, copied, published, distributed, or otherwise disseminated without quotation or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm's written consent. Any content created without citing the resource or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm’s written consent is regularly tracked, and legal action will be taken in case of violation.
Other Contents
The emergence of the installment sale (taksitle satış) as a distinct type of contract compared with an ordinary sale is rooted in economic necessity: it enables individuals who cannot afford to pay the full price at once to immediately benefit from the goods they wish to purchase, thereby stimulating the market and...
The claim for excess damages has long been a subject of debate in Turkish law of obligations as a type of claim seeking compensation for the creditor’s loss arising from the default in payment of monetary debts, which cannot be covered by default interest. Particularly during periods of high inflation, the relevance...
Lease agreements are among the contracts that grant tenants the right to use immovable property for a certain period in exchange for payment and impose significant obligations on the parties. Under Article 310 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (“TCO”), if the ownership of an immovable property changes, the...
Adaptation of the lease agreement cases is among the most frequently encountered legal disputes, especially in the event of economic fluctuations and changes in market conditions. In these cases, it is requested that the rental price be adapted according to the current conditions. Article 138 of the Turkish Code of...
Article 351 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (“TCO”) regulates the new owner’s right to evacuate the immovable property for its needs following the acquisition of the right of ownership. Whether this provision applies to the new owners who were previously joint owners of the immovable property has been the subject...
The assumption of a debt or an act (performance) of a third party has a critical role in the maintenance of commercial relations and the resolution of commercial disputes. The Court of Cassation General Assembly of Civil Chambers (“General Assembly”) recently issued a decision numbered...
In general terms, eviction due to the need for residency is a lawsuit regulated under Article 350 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 ("TCO") and is filed in the event that the lessee is obliged to use the leased property as a residence or workplace for himself/herself, his/her spouse, descendants, ascendants...
Ordinary partnerships are regulated under Turkish Law between Articles 620 and 645 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 (“TCO” or the “Code”). The Law defines an ordinary partnership contract as a contract where two or more persons undertake to combine their labour or property to achieve a common...
The Decree No. 32 on the Protection of the Value of Turkish Currency (“Decree No. 32”) and the Communiqué No. 2008-32/34 on the Decree No. 32 on the Protection of the Value of Turkish Currency (“Communiqué”) prohibit the determination of the contract prices of certain contracts and other payment obligations...
The Constitutional Court's decision dated 14.09.2022 and published in the Official Gazette dated 25.10.2022 and numbered 31994 ("the Constitutional Court Decision") examines whether the start of the application period related to the applicant’s request for appeal being from the date of the pronouncement of...
Although the general principle in the law of contracts is freedom of contract or, in other words, freedom of will, the parties’ wills are not completely free in the case of exemption agreements. The validity of these agreements is limited by the mandatory provisions of the Turkish Code of Obligations...
The Constitutional Court, in its decision dated 14.09.2021 on application no. 2018/25663 (“Decision"), found that applicant Cahide Demir’s right to property was violated on the ground that the mortgage on her real estate, established to secure a third party’s debt, had not been released by the...
The use of general terms and conditions is a commercial reality not only in consumer transactions but also in commercial transactions in certain industries such as automotive, banking, insurance, telecommunications and energy...