Muvazaa: Sham Property Sales in Turkey and When a Deed Can Be Cancelled
A Turkish sale can be unwound years later if the parties never really meant it. Here is how simulated transfers work under the Code of Obligations, why they so often involve inheritance, and what actually protects a buyer who had nothing to do with it.
A sale that both sides agreed was not a sale
Most title problems a foreign buyer meets in Turkey are visible if you look: a mortgage in the register, an attachment, a missing occupancy permit. Muvazaa is the exception. It is the problem that leaves no trace on the face of the record, because the paperwork is in perfect order. A sale was agreed, the parties attended the land registry, the transfer was registered. What was wrong sits behind all of that, in what the parties actually intended.
Muvazaa means simulation. The governing provision is article 19 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, under the heading “interpretation of contracts, simulated transactions”. It provides that in determining and interpreting the type and content of a contract, the real and common intention of the parties is taken as the basis, without regard to the words they used mistakenly or in order to conceal their true purpose. The second paragraph adds a protective limit: a debtor cannot raise simulation against a third party who has acquired a claim in reliance on a written acknowledgement of debt.
For a buyer this matters in a specific and practical way. You are rarely the person who simulated anything. You are the person who buys, later, from someone whose own acquisition is open to attack — and whether that attack reaches you turns on what you knew, or should have known, at the time. This guide sets out how simulation works, the inheritance scenario Turkish courts see most, and where the law draws the line in favour of a buyer acting in good faith.
Muvazaa — The Legal Frame
The provisions and authorities that govern simulated transfers
Four kinds of simulation, and one thing that is not
Turkish law distinguishes between simulation where nothing at all was intended and simulation that conceals a different, real transaction. The distinction changes what happens next.
| Category | What the parties do | Legal consequence |
|---|---|---|
| Mutlak muvazaa — absolute | A transfer is recorded that neither party intends to have any effect; in substance the transferor keeps everything | The visible transaction is void. Nothing passes, because there was never an intention that anything should. |
| Nisbi muvazaa — relative | A real transaction exists, but a different one is recorded — most commonly a gift dressed up as a sale | The visible sale is void; the concealed transaction is then tested on its own terms, including its form requirements. |
| Muris muvazaası | An owner “sells” to one heir or to a third party in order to keep the property from the other heirs | Visible sale void under art. 19; the hidden gift void for want of official form. Cancellation and re-registration follow. |
| Defrauding creditors | A debtor transfers an asset to a relative or associate to put it beyond the reach of enforcement | The transfer is open to attack by creditors, who are the third parties the simulation was aimed at. |
| A genuine sale at a low price | A real sale that both parties intended, agreed below what a comparable property might fetch | Not muvazaa. A bad bargain, a family discount or a quick sale is not a sham, and price alone does not make it one. |
What article 19 actually says
Article 19 of the Code of Obligations is the whole foundation, and it is worth reading closely rather than in summary. In determining the type and content of a contract and in interpreting it, the real and common intention of the parties is taken as the basis — without regard to the words they used either mistakenly or in order to conceal their true purpose.
Two things follow. First, simulation requires agreement. A contract is not simulated because one party privately intended something different; there has to be a shared understanding between them that the recorded transaction is not the real one. That shared understanding is sometimes called the simulation agreement, and proving it is the heart of any such case. Second, the consequence is not that the contract is unfair or reversible on terms. It is that the recorded contract does not reflect the parties’ actual agreement, and so does not stand as what it claims to be.
The second paragraph of article 19 points at the policy running underneath all of this. A debtor may not plead simulation against a third party who acquired a claim in reliance on a written acknowledgement of debt. The law protects people who relied on the appearance that the simulating parties themselves created. That same instinct — protecting the outsider who trusted the record — reappears in the land registry provisions of the Civil Code, and it is the single most important idea in this article for anyone buying property.
Muris muvazaası: the inheritance scenario courts see most
The pattern is familiar in many legal systems. An owner wants a particular child, or a particular person, to end up with a property, and wants to avoid the shares that inheritance law would otherwise produce. Rather than making a gift, which would be visible and open to challenge, the owner attends the land registry and declares a sale. Money may appear to change hands, or may not change hands at all.
The framework Turkish courts apply comes from the Court of Cassation’s Unifying Decision of 1 April 1974, numbered 1/2, which gave the concept its settled shape. Its core holding is that where a person, with the intention of depriving their heirs of their inheritance rights, declares before the land registry officer an intention in the direction of a sale in respect of a registered immovable they in truth wish to gift, then all heirs whose inheritance rights are infringed — whether or not they hold a reserved share — may bring proceedings asserting that the apparent sale contract is simulated and that the concealed gift contract lacks the required form.
Commentators analysing the decision identify four elements in this kind of simulation: the visible transaction, the simulation agreement between the parties, the intention of keeping property from the heirs, and the concealed transaction. It is treated as relative rather than absolute simulation, because something real was intended — just not the thing that was recorded. The decision is confined to transfers of immovables registered in the deceased’s name, and Turkish courts have repeatedly declined to extend it beyond that, which is why the precise facts of each transfer matter so much.
The sham sale and the hidden gift collapse for different reasons
The point that surprises people new to this area is that setting aside the sale does not leave the gift standing. The two fail on separate grounds, and understanding why explains the remedy.
The visible sale fails under article 19. The parties’ real and common intention was not a sale, so there is no sale to enforce, whatever the deed records. The concealed gift then has to be assessed on its own merits — and it fails on form. Article 706 of the Civil Code provides that contracts aimed at transferring ownership of immovable property are valid only if they are made in official form. A private understanding within a family that a property is really a gift has not been made in that form. It therefore cannot take the place of the sale that has just been set aside.
The result is that neither layer holds, and the property is treated as never having validly left the transferor. That is what the remedy — tapu iptali ve tescil, cancellation of the registration and registration in the name of those entitled — is designed to achieve. It sits alongside the ordinary rules on succession, which we cover in our guide to inheritance law in Turkey, and it is distinct from the separate question of whether a lifetime gift should be abated to protect reserved shares.
Who can sue, and for how long
On standing, the 1974 decision is generous. All heirs whose inheritance rights are infringed may bring the claim, whether or not they hold a reserved share. The basis is notable: this right is given to heirs not in their capacity as universal successors stepping into the deceased’s shoes, but as third parties in their own right, because it is their own rights that have been infringed. That characterisation is not a technicality — it is why an heir can attack a transaction the deceased themselves had agreed to.
On timing, the position is equally significant. Because the subject matter of this kind of simulation can only be the transfer of an immovable, the claim is characterised as an action for correction of the land register, and it is accepted that it is not subject to a limitation period. Claims of simulation do not become time-barred and cannot be dismissed on the basis that a preclusive period has run.
For a buyer, that combination — broad standing and no time bar — is the reason this topic belongs in a due-diligence guide at all. It means the question is not only “does this seller own the property today?” but “how did they come to own it, and is there anyone with both a reason and a continuing right to challenge that?” A transfer within a family a few years ago, from an owner who has since died, is not sinister in itself. It is simply a fact worth understanding before rather than after you commit.
The protection available to a buyer who did nothing wrong
None of this makes Turkish property unsafe to buy, and it is important not to over-read it. Turkish law puts substantial weight on the land register precisely so that strangers to a transaction can rely on it. Article 1023 of the Civil Code protects the acquisition of a third party who acquires ownership or another real right by relying in good faith on the registration in the land register. A buyer who trusted the register is, as a rule, meant to keep what they bought.
Article 1024 marks the boundary. Where a real right has been registered without legal ground, a third party who knows or should know this cannot rely on the registration; an unjustified registration is defined as one resting on a non-binding legal transaction or lacking legal cause; and a person whose real right is impaired may assert the invalidity directly against third parties who are not in good faith. Article 1025 then allows a claim for correction of the register, while expressly preserving the real rights acquired by good-faith third parties relying on that registration, together with any claim for damages.
Read together, these provisions describe a workable allocation of risk. The person who simulated bears the consequences. The person who genuinely relied on the register is protected. The person in between — who had reason to suspect and proceeded anyway — is not. Everything practical a foreign buyer can do therefore comes down to putting themselves clearly in the second category: obtaining the full register record and reading it, as set out in our guide to takyidat and title deed encumbrances, asking how the seller acquired the property, and keeping a record of the answers.
Six facts worth asking about before you buy
None of these proves anything on its own, and each has innocent explanations. Together they are the pattern that justifies asking a few more questions before committing.
A recent transfer from an elderly owner
Particularly a transfer to one of several children, shortly before or after a significant change in the owner’s health or circumstances. Ask when, to whom, and on what terms.
A recorded price far below anything comparable
Not decisive on its own, but relevant alongside the other facts — especially where nobody can explain how or whether the stated price was actually paid.
A short chain of transfers inside one family
Property moving between relatives in quick succession, with no obvious commercial reason, is worth understanding before you become the next link in the chain.
Litigation entries in the register
Court decisions protecting disputed rights are annotated under article 1010 of the Civil Code. If one appears against the parcel, find out what the dispute is about.
A seller who cannot explain their own acquisition
A straightforward owner can normally say how and when they acquired the property. Vagueness about the chain of title is a reason to ask more, not fewer, questions.
Pressure to under-declare the price
Being asked to record a figure other than the one you are paying creates a deliberate gap between the register and reality — the very thing that makes a transaction hard to defend later.
How to put yourself on the right side of article 1023
Good faith under Turkish law is not a declaration you make afterwards. It is a position evidenced by what you checked, and when you checked it.
Obtain the full land register record
Not a photograph of a title deed certificate. The record showing every entry against the parcel, including any annotation of disputed rights under article 1010. Our guide to takyidat sets out what each layer of the register holds.
Trace how the current owner acquired it
Ask directly: when, from whom, and by what kind of transaction. A sale, an inheritance, a gift and a transfer from a relative carry different risk profiles, and the answer costs nothing to ask for.
Ask about heirs where the chain runs through a death
If the property passed through an estate, understanding who the heirs were and whether the distribution was agreed is a reasonable question, not an intrusive one.
Declare the real price
Record what you actually pay. Under-declaring to reduce a tax bill creates a permanent mismatch between the register and the facts, and it weakens your position in any later dispute. The same point appears in our guide to the pitfalls foreign buyers fall into.
Use official form and the regulated payment route
Article 706 of the Civil Code requires official form for contracts transferring ownership of immovable property. Keep every payment inside the regulated route rather than settling privately, so the money trail matches the deed.
Take independent legal advice, and keep the file
A lawyer acting for you rather than for the seller or the agent is the point of the exercise. Keep the register extracts, the correspondence and the dates — that file is what evidences good faith if it is ever questioned.
Unsure how a seller came to own the property?
We obtain the full land registry record, trace the chain of acquisition and tell you plainly where the risk sits before you commit anything.
Muvazaa and simulated sales — frequently asked questions
The questions buyers and owners ask most often about simulated transfers and the cancellation of Turkish title deeds.
Where to go next
The rest of our title, inheritance and due-diligence library for international buyers.
- Takyidat — reading the encumbrances recorded against a Turkish property.
- The Turkish title deed (tapu) — what the certificate shows and how ownership is recorded.
- Inheritance law in Turkey — what happens to property on death, and who inherits.
- Tapu errors and corrections — when the land register is wrong and how it is put right.
- Hisseli tapu — shared title deeds and the rights of co-owners.
- Buying property in Turkey: the pitfalls — the mistakes foreign buyers still make.
- Do you need a lawyer? — when independent legal representation earns its cost.
- Turkey property guides — the full library for international buyers.
Know how the seller got it, before you buy it
Tell us the property you are considering and we will obtain the land registry record, trace how the current owner acquired it, and set out plainly where the risk sits and what it would take to close it.
Присоединиться к обсуждению