The Principle and Limitations of Reliance on the Land Registry (Turkish Civil Code Articles 1023–1024)

1) What is the Principle of Reliance on the Land Registry?

law, transactions such as buying, selling, mortgaging, and transferring property cannot be carried out in the market without "transaction security." The main mechanism that meets this need is the protection of third parties who acquire real rights by relying on the registration in the land registry. The Turkish Civil Code establishes this protection Article 1023 ; however, it explicitly limits this protection, stating that it is not automatic and unlimited, Article 1024 .

Simply put, the principle states that a third party who has acquired a right in good faith based on a record in the land registry that "appears to be correct" does not always lose that right if a problem subsequently arises with the basis of that record. However, if the third party knew, or should have known, that trust is no longer protected.

2) Two Fundamental Concepts on Which the Principle is Based: Transparency and Good Faith

Transparency (openness): The land registry makes the legal status of real estate visible to everyone for examination. Therefore, the defense of "I didn't know" is often invalid with regard to the records in the registry (because the registry has been made "knowable"). Publications of the Land Registry and Cadastre also emphasize the public service nature of the registry in the context of ensuring the secure conduct of land transactions and protecting property rights.

Good faith (care in the sense of honesty): In the Turkish Civil Code, good faith is presumed as a rule; however, the claim of good faith by a person who "does not show the care expected of him according to the circumstances" is not accepted (Turkish Civil Code, Article 3). In other words, looking at the land registry is not enough; sometimes the file/event is enough to warn a reasonable person that "this transaction is risky."

3) What does the principle of reliance on the Land Registry "protect"?

The backbone of the area protected by Article 1023 of the Turkish Penal Code is as follows:

• Acquisition of ownership or other real rights (such as mortgage or easement) based on registration ,

• The winner a third party (not a party to the initial transaction; but a subsequent hand),

• Good faith at the time of acquisition .

This protection is specifically designed to prevent third parties from being left completely defenseless, especially when "fraudulent registration" (unsubstantiated, invalid legal basis, unauthorized transaction, etc.) is discovered later.

4) Limitations of the Principle of Reliance on the Land Registry

The following topics are the most frequently discussed boundary areas.

4.1) The Sharpest Limit: The Third Party Who Knew or Should Have Known About the Fraudulent Registration (Turkish Civil Code Article 1024)

Article 1024 of the Turkish Civil Code puts the concept of "bad faith" into practice: A third party who knows about the corruption or should have known about it under the circumstances cannot rely on the registry. The "should have known" criterion here is evaluated based on factors such as the capacity of the person conducting the transaction (e.g., bank, professional investor), the actual use of the property, inconsistencies in the documents, intra-family transfers, excessively low prices, and rapid chain transfers; the presumption of good faith can be rebutted.

In the practice of the Supreme Court, the issue of fraudulent registration and good/bad faith debates mostly proving the facts ; the court can dismiss the case on the grounds that "bad faith has not been proven," or, if the facts are strong, it can even remove the protection of a third party.

4.2) Scope of the Registry: Reliance is limited to what appears in the registry; no disregard for warnings in the registry

The principle of reliance on the land registry the information contained in the land register . This leads to two consequences:

1. Encumbrances recorded in the land registry (mortgage, easement, seizure, precautionary measure, annotation, declaration, etc.) are binding on the third party. Therefore, the claim of "I didn't know" is often unfounded when these records exist.

2. If there are inconsistencies or warning signs in the record , the good faith of the person who ignores them becomes questionable.

In practice, the "annotations and declarations" section is where the limitations of the principle of trust are most visible: The annotation/declaration informs the third party that there is "a risk/claim/personal right in this property"; after this notification, the burden of investigation replaces blind trust.

4.3) Family Home and Bank/Professional Creditors: Good Faith Is Not Always Acceptable Even Without a Notification

Family home disputes are strong examples of how the principle of reliance on the land registry is narrowed in terms of "good faith." In some decisions of the Supreme Court's General Assembly of Civil Law, it is accepted that even if there is no family home annotation in the land registry, the bank/party to the transaction could have known , and therefore the protection of good faith can be excluded.

The key message here is: checking property records alone doesn't automatically prove "good faith" in every case; a higher degree of diligence can be expected, especially from professional actors.

4.4) Double Entry / Registry Contradiction: An Area Where the Principle of Trust is Weakened

Legal doctrine and court decisions emphasize that the principle of trust cannot be automatically applied in cases where the registry itself is contradictory, such as "duplicate title deeds/duplicate registrations." This is because the registry no longer presents "a single truth" to the third party; this creates a serious rupture in the assessment of good faith.

4.5) The Issue of Public Order and Suitability for Private Property: Compensation Instead of Protection

For certain properties or areas (e.g., public order/public space regimes such as forests/coastlines), the subsequent cancellation of the land registry record may become an issue. In such cases, a third party's claim of "I relied on the land registry" may not always be sufficient to uphold ownership; if damage has occurred, the solution often shifts to compensation under Article 1007 of the Turkish Civil Code, which concerns the state's responsibility for maintaining the land registry .

This shows that the principle of trust is not "absolute protection of property"; rather, it is a balancing mechanism that sometimes produces "compensation instead of property.".

4.6) New Era Debate: Construction in Exchange for Land Share and Protection of Third Parties (IBK 16.05.2025)

The limits of the principle of reliance on the land registry have been debated for a long time, particularly regarding the situation of third parties in construction contracts in exchange for land shares. The decision of the Grand General Assembly of the Supreme Court of Appeals dated May 16, 2025 , established a framework indicating that even in cases of invalidity or retroactive termination of the contract, the claim of reliance on the land registry can be heard if the third party is acting in good faith, depending on the specific circumstances. (Of course, the protection is lost if there is no good faith.)

This decision did not end the "border" debate alone; but it clarified one balance: protection exists; however, the key question is always good faith and the specific circumstances of the case.

Conclusion

The principle of reliance on the land registry is the backbone of legal security in the real estate market; however, subject to the condition of good and fraudulent registration, annotation/declaration, and public order . Article 1023 of the Turkish Civil Code "protects," Article 1024 specifies "where the protection ends," and Article 3 defines the "diligence" aspect of good faith.