The fact that a house has been left to a person in a will does not mean that the person is, in every case, the title owner at the moment of death. First, it is determined whether the disposition is the appointment of an heir or the leaving of a specific asset. The right of an appointed heir and that of a legatee, the documents to be submitted at the land registry and the route of action all differ. As a rule, the legatee of a specific immovable asks for performance of the bequest debt and, where the conditions require it, for the title to be registered in the legatee’s name. [1, 3]
In practice, this process is called enforcement of the will (tenfiz), performance of the will, or cancellation of title and registration based on a will. What matters as much as the name of the petition is which share of which immovable is requested to be registered in whose name in the conclusion. A file that has stopped at the opening of the will does not always achieve this result.
How are an appointed heir and a legatee distinguished?
Being entitled to the whole of the estate or to a proportion of it
Under Article 516 of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK), an heir may be appointed for the whole of the estate or for a specific proportion of it. Under TMK Art. 599, an appointed heir acquires the estate upon death. Universal succession is different from merely claiming a specific house; it has consequences linked to the rights and debts of the estate. The legal nature of the document is understood from the disposition as a whole, not from a single word used in it. [1]
Leaving a specific house, plot or share
Under TMK Art. 517 and 600, a person to whom a specific asset is left may be a legatee. By reason of the bequest alone, this person does not directly acquire ownership of the immovable; the person obtains a personal claim against the person bound by the bequest. If the transfer of title does not take place, the person demands performance of the right. The same person may be both a statutory heir and the legatee of a specific bequest; the scope of the two statuses is determined separately. [1]
| Position or document | Legal function | Result for the land registry |
|---|---|---|
| Statutory or appointed heirship | Acquisition of the estate upon death | The route of transfer by certificate of inheritance is assessed |
| Legatee of a specific immovable | Right to demand performance from the person bound by the bequest | The necessary transfer or registration transaction is completed |
| Decision on the opening of the will | Disclosure of the disposition and the process of notice to interested persons | By itself, not a registration judgment in every case |
| Court decision containing registration | Implementable judgment for the specific immovable and share | Registration subject to finalization and the land registry transaction conditions |
Why may the opening of the will not be sufficient by itself?
A will is opened at the civil court of peace (sulh hukuk mahkemesi) after the decedent’s death and notice is given to the interested persons. This step does not mean that the will has been established, by a judgment with res judicata effect among all the parties, to be valid in every respect. The opening file, the notifications, the objections of interested persons and any annulment or abatement actions are examined separately. [1]
The one-month objection period and the period for the annulment action
TMK Art. 598 contains a one-month objection arrangement, running from notice, with regard to the issuance of a certificate of appointed heirship or of legatee status. This period is not the same as the one-year and longer periods for annulment of a will in TMK Art. 559. Remaining silent for one month does not mean that all grounds for annulment have disappeared. [1]
The conclusion “the will was opened, a year has passed, and no defense can be raised any longer” is also incorrect. The right to bring an active annulment action is distinguished from raising invalidity by way of a plea. The decision no. 2026/893, examined below, shows the effect of this distinction in a registration action. [4]
Is it possible to apply to the land registry without filing an action?
Art. 20/1-a of the Land Registry Regulation (Tapu Sicili Tüzüğü) regulates the certificate of inheritance upon the request of a statutory or appointed heir. Sub-paragraph (b) of the same article distinguishes between a legatee applying alone and applying together with statutory and appointed heirs. [3]
Joint application with the heirs
Where the legatee and the statutory and appointed heirs apply together, a route for the transaction is provided with the decision stating that the will has been opened and read and a certified copy of the will. If the other registry conditions are also met, it cannot be said that a contested enforcement action must first be filed in every case. Identity, representation, identification of the immovable and special restrictions are also checked separately. [3]
Application by the legatee alone
For an application made alone, the Regulation provides for an enforcement decision that identifies the immovable and also contains a registration judgment, or an enforcement decision together with a judge’s letter for registration and a certified copy of the will. The mere statement “enforcement of the will” may not provide sufficient clarity in practice. It must be understood which registry transaction the court decision requires. [3]
By whom and against whom is the registration request brought?
The plaintiff must be the holder of an enforceable bequest claim or the person to whom the right has passed. TMK Art. 600 regulates the personal claim directed at the executor of the will, if there is one, and otherwise at the statutory or appointed heirs. Whether the person concerned has accepted the duty, the scope of the duty, whether the heirs have disclaimed and the existing land registry records are investigated. [1]
The registered owner of the immovable and the person bound by the bequest debt may differ. Proper composition of the parties must be ensured with regard to the persons who will be affected by the registration outcome. The presence in the action of only some of the heirs whose rights are in dispute does not, in every case, make it possible to render a judgment concerning the others as well. This action is not conducted like a simple application for the issuance of a document in which no opposing party is named. [1, 2, 4]
If the legatee dies after the decedent
The death of the legatee after the decedent does not necessarily mean that the acquired right of claim has ended. Depending on the nature of the right and the conditions of the disposition, it may be asserted by the legatee’s heirs. By contrast, the death of the legatee before the decedent is a different situation; TMK Art. 581 and the substitute disposition provisions in the will are examined. [1, 5]
2023/6212: A legatee cannot be held liable like an heir
In its decision dated December 13, 2023, E. 2023/4954, K. 2023/6212, the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 7. Hukuk Dairesi) dealt with a case in which a foundation to which a share of specific receivables had been left was included in the action as though it were an appointed heir. The Chamber explained that legatee status does not give rise to universal succession and that this status does not create liability for the decedent’s debts in the manner of an heir. [6]
In the review of the request for correction of the decision, the earlier affirmance was set aside; the judgment was reversed because of problems concerning the status of the parties concerned, the disclaimer of the inheritance by judgment, and the rendering of a judgment concerning a deceased person. This decision prevents the generalization that a percentage expression in a will makes a person an appointed heir in every case. What is decisive is over which assets the disposition is made. [6]
Which conditions are investigated for performance of the will?
First, there must be a disposition that is valid and capable of producing legal effects. Then the scope of the disposition, whether the claim has fallen due and the legal status of the immovable are examined. According to TMK Art. 600, unless the disposition indicates otherwise, the bequest claim falls due when the obligor accepts the inheritance or the right to disclaim lapses. Death, becoming aware and the claim falling due do not always take place on the same date. [1]
The opening file of the will and its finalization status, the notices given to interested persons and any annulment or abatement actions already filed are assessed. If there is another action whose outcome will affect the registration request, a stay pending a preliminary question may arise. The judge does not accept, merely by looking at the time that has passed, that all validity problems in the document have been resolved. [1, 2, 4]
Is the immovable still part of the estate?
The block, parcel and independent unit information in the will must be matched against the current registry. If there have been zoning, subdivision or condominium ownership changes, it is investigated which new right the old description corresponds to. The fact that the decedent owned only a share of the immovable rather than the whole affects the scope of the registration request. [1, 3, 5]
The fact that the immovable was later sold by the decedent is examined separately from the standpoint of revocation of the will and the subject matter of the disposition. It cannot be accepted that an immovable belonging to another person can be obtained directly from that person only because it is written in the will. Different results may emerge depending on the interpretation of the will, TMK Art. 517 and 544 and the relevant obligation relationship. [1]
2026/312: Protection of the share of a third person outside the action
In its decision dated January 19, 2026, E. 2025/2171, K. 2026/312, the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation examined the right of claim of the heirs of a legatee who had died after the decedent. The regional court of appeal (istinaf) found erroneous the ordering of cancellation of the whole of one of the immovables when half of it belonged to a person outside the action, as well as the value calculation in that regard; it re-established the judgment limited to the defendants’ shares. [5]
The Court of Cassation affirmed this decision. It is therefore seen that the existence of a will does not by itself remove the share of a third person who is not a party to the action, and that registration and the calculation of court fees must conform to the scope of the claim actually made. The decision is not a general holding closing all routes of action against third persons. [5]
Does the absence of an annulment action remove all defenses?
In its decision dated February 19, 2026, E. 2025/3167, K. 2026/893, the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dealt with a case in which the Treasury had not been informed during the opening of the will and in the registration action defended on grounds of invalidity. The lower court granted performance of the bequest on the ground that no annulment action had been filed within one year after notification of the petition. [4]
Stating that, under TMK Art. 559, invalidity may be raised by way of a plea at any time, the Court of Cassation reached the conclusion that a judgment granting the claim cannot be rendered without examining the defenses submitted in time. The judgment was reversed. This is not a decision finding that the will is definitively invalid; it is a reversal to the effect that the defense of validity must be examined. [4]
The fact that the plea is not tied to a time limit under substantive law and the stage of the proceedings at which defenses and evidence are to be submitted are different matters. For this reason, if a ground of invalidity is known, it should be made concrete in the response petition. If the aim is to preserve the right to bring an independent annulment action, whether relying only on a defense is sufficient is assessed separately. [1, 2]
For the grounds and time limits for annulment of a will, see the guide on the action for annulment of a will. Abatement based on the reserved portion is a means of protection separate from annulment of the document and from performance of the will.
When does the ten-year statute of limitations begin for a bequest claim?
Under TMK Art. 602, the right to sue is subject to a ten-year statute of limitations running from learning of the disposition upon death or, if the bequest debt is to fall due later, from the date it falls due. This period does not begin, in every case, on the day the will was made or on the day the decedent died. [1]
Presence at the opening hearing, notification of the content and the date on which the debt became demandable must be documented. In doctrine and in the reported case law, decisions that take the opening decision becoming final as the basis diverge from decisions that emphasize learning. For this reason, instead of waiting in reliance on the date of finalization alone, the concrete dates of learning and of the claim falling due should be assessed together. [7]
| Transaction or right | Basic period | Point not to be confused |
|---|---|---|
| Bequest claim | Ten years under TMK Art. 602 | Learning and later falling due |
| Annulment of the will | The one-year, ten-year and twenty-year scheme in TMK Art. 559 | Ground for annulment, entitlement, good faith and triggering event |
| Objection to the issuance of the document | One month under TMK Art. 598 | Not a period that ends all annulment rights |
| Plea of invalidity | TMK Art. 559/2 | The defense must also be properly submitted |
The time limits in TMK Art. 571 for an abatement claim are also examined under their own conditions. The statute of limitations and the time limit for bringing an action (hak düşürücü süre), and an independent action and a defense, should not be equated with one another. [1]
Court with subject-matter and territorial jurisdiction, injunction and litigation costs
The opening of the will is conducted at the civil court of peace. For contested performance of the will and the registration request connected with it, as a rule the civil court of first instance (asliye hukuk mahkemesi) has subject-matter jurisdiction. In the performance of the will, the inheritance law rule on the exclusive territorial jurisdiction of the decedent’s last place of residence is taken into account; the territorial jurisdiction rule for general immovable property actions should not be applied automatically merely because registration of title is ultimately requested. [1, 2, 7]
If there is a foreign element, claims combined that differ in nature, or a foreign court judgment, a separate assessment is required. The “enforcement” of a foreign court judgment and the performance of a will under Turkish law are not the same concept. This article deals with the performance of a bequest claim in a domestic dispute in Türkiye.
An action is not subject to mandatory mediation in every case merely because it concerns an inheritance or immovable property. If the claim also covers division or dissolution of co-ownership, Art. 18/B of Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes is examined. If an agreement is to be made on the subject of the disposition, the conditions of representation and of the land registry are also taken into account. [8]
In case of danger of transfer, an interim injunction; as for the value of the action, the immovable or share whose registration is requested matters. A calculation of court fees for the whole of the immovable may be wrong if the claim relates only to certain shares. On-site examination, court-appointed expert, notification and the risk of the opposing party’s costs are assessed separately. It must be ensured that the judgment producing the registration result becomes final and is clear enough to be implemented at the registry. [2, 3, 5]
Which documents should be gathered before the action?
The file should not be assessed with only a photocopy of the will. The validity of the document, the status of the right holder and the registry transaction requested are three separate examinations that complement one another.
- The original or certified copy of the will, and any later wills and documents of revocation.
- The opening file, hearing minutes, notifications and finalization records.
- Certificates of statutory and appointed heirship; the chain of heirship of deceased beneficiaries.
- The decision, notices and duty information concerning the executor of the will.
- Current and past land registry records, parcel conversions and ownership shares.
- Files on annulment, abatement or disclaimer of the inheritance, and evidence of learning and of the claim falling due.
In the conclusion of the claim, it must be shown clearly whose record is to be cancelled in what proportion and in whose name it is to be registered. If registration is not possible, the basis and the person responsible for the alternative claim must be set out separately; the inability to obtain the immovable does not, in every case, automatically give rise to a monetary claim against the same person. [1, 2, 3]
For related topics, you can also see our articles on what a will is and our page on actions for cancellation of title and registration.
Conclusion
In having a bequeathed immovable registered at the land registry, the first step is to determine the status of the right holder. An appointed heir and the legatee of a specific bequest do not proceed by the same route. Opening, notice, falling due and registration transactions should each be dealt with according to its own function.
A correct claim covers all the persons concerned, the current immovable and share information, the defenses and the time limits. As important as the existence of the will is that the court judgment be framed clearly enough to be implemented at the land registry.
Frequently Asked Questions
If a house is left to me in a will, do I become the owner of the house upon death?
If you are the legatee of a specific bequest, as a rule you do not become the owner directly; you acquire the right to demand performance. Appointed heirship is different. First, the legal nature of the will is determined.
Can I obtain the title deed on my own with the decision on the opening of the will?
Not in every case. The Land Registry Regulation provides for an application made alone and an application made together with the heirs, with different documents. The opening decision is not accepted as being, by itself, a registration judgment.
If the heirs agree, is it still necessary to file an action?
If the necessary persons apply together and the other registry conditions are met, the route of a transaction at the land registry may be assessed. Art. 20/1-b of the Regulation regulates this situation separately.
Is the action for enforcement of the will filed at the civil court of peace?
The opening of the will is a matter for the civil court of peace. A contested request for performance and registration is, as a rule, assessed at the civil court of first instance.
If the immovable is in another city, must the action be filed there?
In the performance of the will, the exclusive territorial jurisdiction of the decedent’s last place of residence is taken into account. Merely requesting registration of title does not result in the automatic application of the general territorial jurisdiction for immovable property.
If no annulment action is filed within one year, is the will regarded as final?
Such a conclusion cannot be drawn with respect to all objections. The plea of invalidity is assessed separately. The decision no. 2026/893 shows that a judgment for registration cannot be rendered without examining this defense.
If the legatee dies later, can the legatee’s heirs bring an action?
They may, depending on the nature of the right and the disposition. Death before the decedent and death after the decedent are assessed differently; the chain of heirship and the scope of the right acquired must be determined.
Does the ten-year period begin on the day the will was written?
No. TMK Art. 602 is based on learning and the later falling due. The notice and learning records in the opening file should be examined together.
Sources and legal bases
1 — Law No. 4721 on the Turkish Civil Code, in particular Arts. 516–518, 544, 550–556, 559, 571, 576, 581, 595–602.
2 — Law No. 6100 on Civil Procedure, in particular Arts. 2, 11, 26, 111, 165, 297, 367 and 389–397.
3 — Land Registry Regulation, 2013/5150, in particular Art. 20/1-a, b and e.
4 — 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, February 19, 2026, E. 2025/3167, K. 2026/893, publicly available reproduction of the full text of the decision; reversal for the examination of the plea of invalidity.
5 — 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, January 19, 2026, E. 2025/2171, K. 2026/312, publicly available reproduction of the full text of the decision; the heirs of the legatee, and the limitation of registration and court fees to the share.
6 — 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, December 13, 2023, E. 2023/4954, K. 2023/6212, official text of the decision; the difference between legatee status and appointed heirship, and party status.
7 — Mehmet Akçaal, “The Concept of Enforcement of a Will and the Action for Enforcement of a Will” (“Vasiyetnamenin Tenfizi Kavramı ve Vasiyetnamenin Tenfizi Davası”), Necmettin Erbakan University Faculty of Law Journal (Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi), 2023, 6(1), pp. 374–396; in particular pp. 377–378 and 388–390. This is an assessment of the doctrine and of the reported decisions; it should not be confused with decisions examined directly.
8 — Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes, Arts. 17/B and 18/B.