A title deed for a land share or an independent unit obtained from a builder is not necessarily cancelled when the contract between the landowner and the builder ends. The Grand General Assembly for Unification of Case Law of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay İçtihatları Birleştirme Büyük Genel Kurulu), in its decision of 16 May 2025, accepted that the good-faith claim of a third party who acquired ownership or a mortgage right in reliance on the title must be examined. Protection requires a right in rem acquired on the basis of the land registry, and good faith that deserves protection at the moment of acquisition. If bad faith is proven, a claim for return of the title may succeed. [1, 2]
This issue differs from the title claim of a buyer who has so far only signed a contract with the builder. The basic question here is whether the position of a person who defends an existing title against the landowner's cancellation action will be protected.
What did the unification-of-case-law decision of 16 May 2025 change?
In land-share-for-construction projects, the landowner may transfer a share to the contractor before construction begins or is completed. The contractor, appearing as owner in the land registry, may then sell this share to a third party or create a mortgage on it. When the landowner requests that the main contract be terminated with retroactive effect because the construction was not completed, the fate of the third party's title comes into question.
The decision of the Grand General Assembly for Unification of Case Law, dated 16 May 2025, E.2024/1, K.2025/2, adopts the principle that the good-faith defense of a third party who acquired rights after the transfer from the landowner to the contractor must be heard. Where the main contract is invalid or terminated with retroactive effect, a good-faith acquirer of ownership or a mortgage right who relied on the title can be protected. This approach does not mean that every third party is protected unconditionally. [2]
Is the “avans tapu” statement enough on its own?
The landowner may prove that the title was handed over to the contractor in return for the construction. However, it does not follow that the ownership of every later buyer automatically reverts. The Court of Cassation's 6th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 6. Hukuk Dairesi), in its application decision of 27 October 2025, makes clear that the characterization “avans tapu” cannot replace an examination of the third party's reliance on the register. The settlement between the parties to the main contract and the third party's acquisition of the right in rem must be examined separately. [3]
Does the decision only concern new sales?
A unification-of-case-law decision is binding in similar legal disputes within its scope. The decision of 27 October 2025 states that the new case law should be applied to pending disputes and that the earlier approach should be reconsidered. However, it cannot be said that all final decisions automatically lapse or that all concluded files may be reopened. Res judicata, legal remedies and, where they exist, the conditions for retrial are assessed separately. [3, 5]
Who can benefit from protection based on reliance on the land registry?
A buyer who acquired ownership in the land registry
Article 1023 of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK) protects a third party who, in good faith and relying on an entry in the land registry, acquires ownership or another right in rem. TMK Article 1024 provides that a person who knew or should have known of the wrongful registration cannot rely on it. Therefore, both an acquisition that has taken place through the register and the conditions of that acquisition are assessed. [1]
For details on the cancellation of a title obtained through a forged power of attorney or identity documents, see the cancellation of a title transfer carried out with a forged power of attorney or identity.
A personal promise regarding a land share and a specific flat must be distinguished. If a buyer purchases a land share but a specific flat was shown during marketing, condominium ownership and sharing issues may arise separately. Good-faith protection does not change the nature of the right acquired in the register.
A bank or other right holder who acquired a mortgage
The scope of the 2025 decision is not limited to buyers of flats. A mortgage creditor who acquired a right in rem over the contractor's title may also fall within the assessment. Nevertheless, it cannot be said that a bank is always in good faith or always in bad faith. The circumstances of the transaction, the records and the information available at the time of acquisition are examined together. [1, 2]
A contract buyer who does not yet have title
A person who has paid the builder and signed a contract may not yet have acquired a right in rem. For such a person, the assignment of the contractor's claim to registration, the performance of the contract and the landowner's defenses come into question. The protection under TMK Article 1023 is not a tool that turns merely signing a contract into the acquisition of ownership by title. [1, 6]
For details, see the title to a property purchased outside the formal process.
| Position of the person | Main right examined | Main legal question |
|---|---|---|
| Buyer who acquired a share or unit in the register | Ownership | Is good faith at the time of acquisition protected? |
| Person who acquired a mortgage in the register | Limited right in rem | Is the mortgage protected under reliance on the register? |
| Buyer under a sale contract only | Personal claim | Did the contractor acquire and transfer the right to registration? |
| Contractor, party to the original contract | Mutual rights under the contract | Was the construction obligation performed, and how will the unwinding be carried out? |
| Person who acquired title through a later transfer | New acquisition of a right in rem | Is there protection in light of their own acquisition date and knowledge? |
By which date and which information is good faith assessed?
The decisive moment is when the right in rem is acquired
Seeing the flat, paying a deposit, signing the contract and taking over the title may happen on different dates. For reliance on the register, the situation at the time the right in rem is acquired is decisive. A serious dispute that became known before the transfer of title may be considered even if it was not known on the date of the original contract. [1, 3]
Likewise, the builder's default long after the buyer's acquisition does not automatically remove earlier good faith. Events must be placed in chronological order; information that arose later must not be carried back in time.
Is knowing about the construction contract alone bad faith?
In its decision of 27 October 2025, the Court of Cassation emphasized whether the landowner substantiated that the buyer knew or should have known that the title had been transferred to the contractor because of the construction contract, and that there were conditions for termination with retroactive effect. The fact that a buyer knew the building was a land-share-for-construction project should not, in every case, be treated as sufficient on its own for the same result. [3]
However, under Article 3(2) of the TMK, a person who does not show the care required by the circumstances cannot claim good faith. The mere statement that “the title was clean” does not end every examination where concrete and visible risks exist. The limit of protection is assessed in light of all the circumstances of the case. [1]
With what evidence can a bad-faith claim be substantiated?
Good faith is presumed; the landowner must set out bad faith through concrete facts and evidence. The evidence must be capable of showing that the buyer not only knew the contractor but also knew, or should have known, of a material legal defect in the title or of the conditions for its termination. [1, 3]
| Evidence or fact | Matter to investigate | Conclusion that should not be drawn automatically |
|---|---|---|
| Formal notice served before the transfer | The buyer's knowledge of a specific breach | That every notice alone proves the claim |
| Lawsuit or interim-measure entries in the register | The state of the register on the date of acquisition | That every type of entry has the same legal effect |
| Physical condition of the site | Visible signs of interruption and clear impossibility | That every unfinished building's buyer is in bad faith |
| Correspondence between the parties | Information about the breach and the termination conditions | That acquaintance alone is sufficient |
| Price and payment terms | The economic reality of the transaction | That a low price alone is conclusive proof |
| Company or family relationships | Access to information and the background of the transaction | That kinship alone creates bad faith |
Documents the buyer should keep
Records obtained before the transfer of title, correspondence with the seller, payment documents, inspection reports and delivery documents may help explain the process of acquisition. It is important that documents be distinguished from explanations prepared later. An expert report is also not a guarantee document that removes legal risks outside its scope.
For the landowner, a separate chronology should be prepared for each buyer. One buyer's knowledge cannot automatically be attributed to all buyers in the same project. Where there are multiple transfers, the records between them and the conditions of each acquisition must be assessed one by one.
How should the Court of Cassation decision of 27 October 2025 be applied?
In the decision of the Court of Cassation's 6th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 6. Hukuk Dairesi) dated 27 October 2025, E.2024/3644, K.2025/3594, transfers by the contractor in a project where construction had not begun were in dispute. Rather than directly protecting the outcome of the title cancellation, the chamber required that the good faith of the third party be examined in line with the new case law. The judgment was quashed on the ground that a reasonable period should be given to the landowner to submit evidence of bad faith.
This reversal is important in two respects: the buyer's defense that they bought from a person who appeared as owner in the register must be heard; and the landowner must also have the opportunity to show, with concrete evidence, that this defense cannot benefit from protection. The decision does not produce a predetermined outcome for all buyers.
Is a conflict between a bank mortgage and a sale promise the same problem?
Not every mortgage dispute has the same legal structure as the 2025 case law. In particular, where a buyer under a sale promise agreement asks for the removal of a bank mortgage, this is different from the landowner's action against the later rights in rem acquired after the contractor.
In its decision of 5 March 2026, E.2025/3623, K.2026/1258, the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 7. Hukuk Dairesi) did not accept the removal of a bank mortgage on the basis of an unregistered sale promise. The decision separates the outcome concerning registration from the outcome concerning the removal of the mortgage. This decision shows the problem with the interpretation that “every earlier contract removes the later mortgage.” The parties, the type of right and the source of the conflict differ between the two groups of decisions. [4]
How are the parties and interim protection handled in a title cancellation action?
The landowner's claim must be directed against the registered owner whose share is at issue, and that right holder must be a party to the case. In a claim to remove a mortgage, the rights of the mortgage creditor are also affected. Claims to terminate the contract with the builder and to remove the third party's right must be explained with their own conditions and parties. [5]
For details, see interim injunction and interim attachment.
Disputes concerning a right in rem over immovable property are assessed in light of the mandatory local jurisdiction of the place where the property is located and the nature of the relationship, to determine the competent court. An interim injunction may be requested to prevent new transfers from making the claim more difficult; prima facie proof and a showing of danger are required. A registry annotation of an injunction does not mean the substance of the dispute has been resolved. [5]
If a new transfer occurs during the action
Article 125 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK) sets out the procedural options when the subject matter of an action is transferred. The new owner, the date of transfer and the registry position must be examined together. A transfer during the action does not by itself end all claims; however, it should not be assumed that the earlier petition and the party structure will remain sufficient without any further step. [5]
If the title is protected, do the landowner's other claims end?
Protecting the third party's acquisition does not automatically remove the contractor's liability to the landowner arising from breach of contract. Settlement, price or damage claims that the landowner may bring against the contractor are assessed according to the type of termination of the contract and the concrete loss. On the other hand, it is not possible to hold the contractor liable for all of its debts merely because the protected third party's title could not be cancelled. [1, 6]
For details, see default and elective rights (Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK) Art. 125).
For the buyer, protecting the title does not mean that defects, missing work, delayed delivery or common-area problems have been resolved. These matters have their own contractual and statutory conditions. Good-faith review does not by itself remove all the economic and technical risks of the property.
Conclusion
The current approach to protecting a title obtained from a builder assesses together the title record and good faith at the time of acquisition. For the landowner, the decisive preparation is to put forward concrete evidence of bad faith relating to each buyer's acquisition. For the buyer, it is important to document what was acquired, from whom, and with which register entries and information. The 2025 decision makes this review mandatory; it does not produce an automatic win or loss in every file.
Frequently Asked Questions
If the builder does not finish the construction, will my title definitely be cancelled?
No. Alongside the breach between the landowner and the contractor, the assessment also covers whether your acquisition of the right in rem is protected in good faith.
Does the 2025 decision automatically protect a buyer who does not have title?
No. A personal claim arising only from a contract and a right in rem acquired through the register are different things. The performance and assignment conditions of a buyer who does not have title are assessed separately.
Does not knowing the builder mean I acted in bad faith?
Not by itself. Closeness may be taken into account, together with other facts, in the assessment of knowledge and care; whether you knew or should have known of the specific conditions of breach is examined.
Is seeing that the construction is unfinished always bad faith?
No. Knowing that a building is unfinished is not the same as knowing that there are conditions for termination with retroactive effect. The stage of the project and the visible risks are assessed concretely.
Is a low sale price alone enough for title cancellation?
It is not regarded as sufficient on its own in every file. It is assessed together with the actual payment, the condition of the property at the date of acquisition and other evidence.
Can a bank mortgage also be protected in good faith?
It can be, if the conditions are met. The date on which the mortgage right was acquired, the register and the bank's knowledge of the relevant event are examined.
Does new case law automatically set aside a title decision that has already become final?
No. Applying new case law to pending disputes is different from removing a final judgment. In files that have become final, the appropriate legal remedy is examined separately.
If the buyer's title is protected, can the landowner claim nothing?
Monetary claims that may arise against the contractor under the contract and the unwinding process may be assessed separately. Protecting a third party's title does not automatically end the contractor's liability.
Sources and legal bases
- Law No. 4721, Turkish Civil Code (Türk Medeni Kanunu), in particular Art. 3, 6, 1020 and 1023–1024.
- Grand General Assembly for Unification of Case Law of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay İçtihatları Birleştirme Büyük Genel Kurulu), 16 May 2025, E.2024/1, K.2025/2; Official Gazette (Resmî Gazete), 18 July 2025, no. 32959; announcement and decision summary of the Ankara 2 No'lu Bar Association (Ankara 2 No'lu Barosu duyurusu).
- Court of Cassation 6th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 6. Hukuk Dairesi), 27 October 2025, E.2024/3644, K.2025/3594; decision text.
- Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 7. Hukuk Dairesi), 5 March 2026, E.2025/3623, K.2026/1258; decision text.
- Law No. 6100, Code of Civil Procedure (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), in particular Art. 12, 125, 303 and 389–399; Law No. 2797, Court of Cassation Law (Yargıtay Kanunu), Art. 45.
- Law No. 6098, Turkish Code of Obligations (Türk Borçlar Kanunu), in particular Art. 112, 123–125, 183–184 and 188.