Title Cancellation & Registration

In Turkey, a land registry record can be transferred to a third party in a matter of hours via a forged power of attorney; in Montenegro, an annotation surfacing years later on the list nepokretnosti of an unpermitted apartment can lock up your entire investment. Few areas of law punish lost time as severely as real estate. If the right standing behind a registry record does not in fact belong to its registered holder, the entry — however clean it appears — is legally an unjustified registration and can be cancelled. At RoNa Legal we run title cancellation and registration cases in Turkey, coordinate with local Montenegrin counsel from our Budva office on Montenegrin real estate disputes, and manage cross-border files at the intersection of property, succession and matrimonial regimes from a single point.

This page is written for our Turkish clients dealing with title disputes in Turkey and Turkish investors who own — or plan to acquire — real estate in Montenegro. The scope is intentionally weighted toward Turkey because that reflects the concrete need of our core client base. The Montenegrin dimension and the cross-border framework are presented as the complementary axis that distinguishes us from single-jurisdiction firms.

Title cancellation and registration in Turkey: the legal frame

Turkish Civil Code Art. 1025 and reversing unjustified registrations

Article 1025 of the Turkish Civil Code provides that where a real right has been unjustifiedly registered, or a registration has been unjustifiedly cancelled or modified, any person harmed may demand correction of the land registry. In practice this is known as a title cancellation and registration action and it is the backbone of Turkish real estate litigation. Because it concerns a real right, jurisdiction lies — under Article 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure — with the court at the location of the immovable; subject-matter jurisdiction lies, as a rule, with the Civil Court of First Instance. The action is brought against the registered owner by the true rightholder harmed by the irregular registration.

The critical point: because title cancellation and registration is grounded in a real right, it is generally not subject to limitation or any time-bar. Even ten, twenty, or forty years on, the true rightholder's action does not expire on its own. There are several exceptions; the most important is the ten-year time-bar in Article 12(3) of Cadastre Act No. 3402, running from the finalisation of the cadastral record. That is why claims based on legal causes pre-dating the cadastral record must not miss the window.

Decisions of the 1st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation between 2023 and 2025 show that the determination of unjustified registration has been getting more fact-sensitive — and that the balance between the publicity of the registry and the protection of the true rightholder is now built through expert reports, witness testimony and bank records read together. In one of my client files, a previously hidden gap in a 1990s heir-tracing exercise — concealed behind an outwardly clean record — was the evidence that won the case three decades later.

Turkish Civil Code Art. 1024 — the limits of good-faith third-party protection

The clash we see most often in practice is whether a transfer based on a forged power of attorney or an unjustified registration affects a downstream buyer who relied on the apparently clean registry. Read together, Articles 1023 and 1024 of the Turkish Civil Code mean that a person who acquires ownership or another real right by relying in good faith on the registry is protected. But protection is not absolute: a person who knew or ought to have known that the right was unjustifiedly registered cannot invoke the good-faith defence.

The concrete consequence: if your property was transferred under a forged power of attorney and the buyer was in a position to notice the irregularity (an unusually low price, a transfer concluded without ever inspecting the property, a chain of rapid resales, doubts about the notary who issued the power) your title cancellation action will reach the third party as well. If the buyer genuinely relied on the registry, paid market value and discharged ordinary diligence, then your case will most likely shift into a damages action against the former owner or the forger. How quickly the power of attorney is investigated through the notarial registry, ID cross-checks and any available intelligence determines which track the file takes.

Muris muvazaası — undoing fictive transfers designed to defeat inheritance

Where a deceased, intending to deprive the heirs of their share, masks what is actually a gift of immovable property as a sale on the registry, the doctrine of muris muvazaası (testator's collusive transfer) applies. The foundational authority — still in force — is the Court of Cassation General Assembly Decision Unifying Judgments No. 1/2 of 1 April 1974. Under that decision, every legal and instituted heir whose succession right has been infringed — whether or not they hold a reserved share — may bring a title cancellation and registration action arguing that the apparent sale is void for collusion and the underlying gift fails for want of the official form required for immovables.

The burden of proof for collusion lies on the claimant, and the case can be proved by any kind of evidence; in fact, witness testimony is often the decisive evidence. The Court of Cassation's settled criteria are clear: whether the deceased had any reasonable, legitimate motive for the transfer; whether the defendant had the financial means to acquire the property; the gap between the price recorded on the registry and actual market value; the deceased's age and health; transfers made close to death; the family-relationship dynamics; and whether any payment left an actual bank trail. In one of my client files, three parcels owned by a father were transferred as a "sale" to one son six months after the father's Alzheimer's diagnosis — with bank records showing no flow of funds and a comparable-value report seven times higher than the registered price. That combination established the collusion.

The most contested aspect of muris muvazaası is the time issue. The settled view is that because a collusive transaction is absolutely void and unprotected by the legal order, the action is in principle not subject to limitation or time-bar after the deceased's death. Where the cadastral record is finalised after the deceased's death, however, there is debate over whether the ten-year bar in Article 12(3) of Act 3402 applies, and over how the one- and ten-year periods in Turkish Civil Code Art. 571 (reduction action) reflect onto a muris muvazaası claim. That is why standardised answers about deadlines should be avoided: in every file we look at the date of death, the cadastral position, whether a subsidiary reduction claim is pleaded, and the nature of the transfer together. The safest way to avoid forfeiting rights is to put the file on the table with counsel rather than relying on a generic time calculation.

Abuse of the power of attorney

An agent transferring an immovable beyond authority — or acting under a wholly forged power of attorney — is one of the most typical title-cancellation scenarios. Where the agent transfers to themselves or a relative, especially without consideration or for a low price, the prohibition on dual representation in Turkish Code of Obligations Art. 40 and the principle of good faith are read together. In practice, verification of the power against the notarial registry, the soundness of the principal's will and the relationship between the immovable's true value and the transfer price are examined together. Where the agent has exceeded authority or the power is forged, the title is cancelled; the third party's good faith is then weighed under Turkish Civil Code Art. 1024. A forgery allegation also requires a criminal complaint to the Public Prosecutor's Office, and the civil case and the criminal investigation run in parallel.

Defects of will and incapacity

An official transfer recorded with the land registry is a contract; it can therefore be cancelled for mistake, fraud, or duress under Article 30 et seq. of the Turkish Code of Obligations. The critical point here is the one-year time-bar in Turkish Code of Obligations Art. 39, running from the date the mistake or fraud was discovered, or — for duress — from the date the threat ceased. Time runs very fast in these files: the moment the client learned the true nature of the transaction must be documented, and the pleadings drafted accordingly.

Beyond that, a transfer on the registry executed by a person lacking legal capacity to discriminate within the meaning of Turkish Civil Code Art. 15 is void from the outset. In Alzheimer's, advanced dementia, severe psychiatric conditions, or post-operative confusion, the court assesses capacity at the date of the transfer through a report from the Council of Forensic Medicine or a university hospital. Prescription records, hospital files, statements from treating physicians and close-family witnesses, presented together, lead to cancellation. Capacity issues frequently overlap with muris muvazaası claims; in late-life transfers by the deceased, both whether a gift was concealed and whether capacity existed at the time of signing are examined together.

Condominium disputes

A significant portion of the files we run under Condominium Act No. 634 involve common areas being treated as if they were independent units, errors in the majority calculations required to amend the management plan, or breakdowns in the transition from construction servitude to full condominium. Bringing the attic into private ownership, exclusive use of a garden by one apartment, façade alterations, allocations of additional space — unless the management plan expressly permits — cannot be done without unanimity among all unit owners.

A common scenario is an apartment sold during the construction-servitude phase that cannot then be converted into condominium ownership because the building is not project-compliant. The buyer is left with an immovable that is technically complete but legally incomplete. Claims against the developer are framed around bringing the building into project compliance, contract damages and — depending on the facts — termination of the contract. Where common areas are encroached upon, the priority is an action to prevent encroachment (men-i müdahale) and restoration; as the duration of de facto use grows, an unjust-occupation indemnity (ecrimisil) claim joins the picture.

Cadastre, expropriation and other special actions

Objections to a cadastral record are filed during the public posting period under Cadastre Act No. 3402. If that period is missed, an action may still be brought within the ten-year time-bar in Article 12(3), running from the finalisation of the record, on the basis of legal causes pre-dating the cadastre. Once that period elapses, the registered ownership can only be challenged on grounds that are not subject to a time-bar — collusion, forgery or abuse of agency — but where the deceased died before the cadastral assessment, some chambers of the Court of Cassation apply the ten-year bar even to those exceptions. Cadastre cases brought without first reading the back of the record, the surveying sheet applied and the cadastral witness statements are usually struck out on procedural grounds.

On the expropriation side we run two main blocks. The first is the price-determination and registration action under Article 10 of Expropriation Act No. 2942: the administration applies for price determination so it can expropriate, and the price is fixed by an expert panel before the court. The second is de facto expropriation. Beginning with the Court of Cassation Decision Unifying Judgments of 16 May 1956 (1956/1-6), case law has long recognised the rightholder's right to bring a price action and an injunction in the civil courts where the administration has actually seized the immovable. The concept of legal expropriation, developed by the Court of Cassation General Civil Assembly Decision 2010/5-662, treats even the situation where an immovable allocated to public service in a zoning plan is left unexpropriated for many years — and the owner's right to dispose is de facto restricted — as a violation of the right to property. Determining the proper court is critical here: civil courts (Civil Court of First Instance) have jurisdiction over de facto expropriation; for legal expropriation, depending on legislative changes and shifts in case law, jurisdiction can fall to either the administrative or civil courts. The European Court of Human Rights has, in numerous decisions against Turkey — particularly under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 — characterised long-running de facto expropriations as breaches of the right to property. Compensation is always determined on an expert report; the figures stated when the case is filed are minimum claims and are revised after the on-site inspection.

The pre-emption right (şufa) under Turkish Civil Code Arts. 732–735 is a statutory right granted to co-owners in shared ownership. Where one co-owner sells their share to a third party, the other co-owners may exercise the pre-emption right within three months of notarial notification of the sale and in any event within two years of the sale itself. These periods are time-bars. In the Court of Cassation's case law, a "de facto partition" defence is a serious obstacle: where co-owners have effectively divided the property by use and each has long been operating their own portion, the pre-emption claim is dismissed under good-faith doctrine.

Ecrimisil — unjust-occupation indemnity — is at minimum the equivalent of lost rental income. Under the Court of Cassation Decision Unifying Judgments of 25 May 1938 (29/10), it is subject to a five-year limitation period; it may be claimed for the five years preceding the filing date. Comparable rents, the property's location and use, and the occupier's good or bad faith are decisive. The encroachment action under Turkish Civil Code Art. 683 (men-i müdahale) prevents incursions on the property and, being grounded in ownership, is not subject to a time-bar; if the encroachment has ended, however, the case becomes moot.

A promise-to-sell of an immovable is invalid under Turkish Code of Obligations Art. 237 unless made in notarial deed form; once annotated on the registry, it can be invoked against third parties for five years. We see this most often in developer/landowner relationships. The family-residence annotation in Turkish Civil Code Art. 194 reflects on the registry the rule that a married spouse cannot dispose of the family residence without the other spouse's consent; transfers made notwithstanding the annotation can be cancelled, and even without an annotation, where the family-residence character is proved, a title cancellation and registration action can be brought. We work in parallel with our divorce and family law team where the family-residence axis intersects.

Real estate disputes in Montenegro

The land registry system and how to read the record

Montenegro's real estate registry system is the Katastar nepokretnosti; the competent authority is the Uprava za katastar i državnu imovinu (formerly Uprava za nekretnine), and records are largely searchable online via www.katastar.me. Each immovable's legal identity card is the record called list nepokretnosti, which contains three sub-lists: list A shows the physical attributes of the immovable (parcela, area, cultural type, presence of a building); list B shows the ownership; list C shows the encumbrances on the immovable — hipoteka, zabilježba, službenost, attachments, annotations. In one client matter, an enforcement zabilježba registered years earlier on the C list of an apartment bought in Budva surfaced after the sale and locked up the entire investment; that is why the C list must always be read in a current-dated copy before purchase. Our Montenegro real-estate purchase guide walks through that checklist in detail.

For registration purposes, uknjižba denotes full registration and predbilježba a preliminary or conditional registration. Predbilježba protects a contractual right but the real right is fully constituted only when the gaps are closed and it is converted into a full registration. A title left at the predbilježba stage is not a guarantee — it is an expectation of one.

The sale process, notary and contract structure

The real estate sale contract — ugovor o kupoprodaji nepokretnosti — must in Montenegro be either drafted before a notary (javni bilježnik/notar) under Zakon o notarima or notarially attested via solemnizacija; otherwise it cannot be registered. The pre-contract (predugovor) and the kapora (the equivalent of a Turkish kaparo) are governed by Zakon o obligacionim odnosima. What happens to the kapora on withdrawal depends on the contract wording: if the buyer withdraws, the kapora is forfeited; if the seller withdraws, it is generally returned in double. A trap Turkish investors often fall into is failing to spot the gap between the Montenegrin original and the English translation, and reading "good faith deposit" as something independent of how kapora actually works under Montenegrin law.

On the tax side, two regimes apply depending on the seller's or buyer's status: a 21% VAT (PDV) on the first sale of new construction by a corporate developer; on the second-hand and other transfers, the real estate transfer tax (porez na promet nepokretnosti) applies. Recent practice was a flat 3%, while progressive bands (typically starting at 3% and rising in upper tranches) have been debated and are entering practice; the prevailing rate must be confirmed before purchase. Annual property tax (porez na nepokretnosti) varies by municipality, broadly in the 0.25%–1% range. The Central Bank of Montenegro, the tax authority and the relevant local municipality websites should all be cross-checked.

Condominium, construction and legalisation

In Montenegro, the etažiranje process registers the independent units of a building separately, with a technical project — the etažni elaborat — submitted to the registry. Where condominium ownership has not been established, an "apartment" purchased in such a building shows on the registry not as an independent unit but as an administrative share of the building, giving the buyer only limited legal protection. Gaps in the building permit (građevinska dozvola) and the use permit (upotrebna dozvola) are among the most common pain points for Turkish investors; in an unpermitted or no-occupancy building, even water, electricity, rental registration and value appreciation become problematic. For developer delays and delivery failures see also our developer claims and commercial disputes guide.

The picture has been fundamentally reshaped by the new Legalisation Act (Zakon o legalizaciji bespravnih objekata), published in Montenegrin Official Gazette No. 91/2025 and in force since 14 August 2025. The Act opens a narrow window for registering unpermitted structures with the cadastre; the application window expires roughly six to twelve months after entry into force (in practice debated as falling between February 2026 and August 2026). Legislative proposals to extend the deadline are on the agenda, and developments on the precise date should be tracked. Buildings not visible on satellite or orthophoto imagery dated July 2025 fall outside the scope; missing the window triggers demolition orders and substantial administrative fines (EUR 500–4,000 for natural persons and EUR 5,000–40,000 for legal persons). Because the elaborat prepared by licensed surveying firms, the zoning-compatibility check and the municipal application process can take one to two months, waiting is not advisable. This regime is fluid; before any investment decision or dispute, the prevailing provisions in force at the date must be confirmed.

Restrictions on foreign acquisition

Montenegro's Zakon o svojinsko-pravnim odnosima in principle permits foreign natural and legal persons to acquire residential housing, apartments and business premises on equal terms with Montenegrin citizens; the reciprocity (reciprocitet) requirement is not a practical issue for Turkey. The Act, however, prohibits or restricts foreign ownership in specific categories: natural resources, public goods, agricultural land (poljoprivredno zemljište), forests and forested areas, cultural assets of exceptional importance, immovables within roughly one kilometre of the state border, islands, and zones declared strategic for national security. A foreign natural person may acquire ownership in agricultural, forest or forested land only by way of exception, where there is a residential structure on it and the parcel does not exceed 5,000 m². For inheritance acquisitions there is no distinction between foreigners and citizens.

The most frequent question in practice is whether the agricultural-land restriction can be circumvented through a Montenegro-incorporated company (DOO). The general tendency is that a locally incorporated legal person can acquire restricted lands, but EU accession dynamics and shifts in national security legislation mean the answer is not the same in every file. The one-kilometre rule applied to military/border zones and ownership in zones declared strategic remain closed even via a company. Before relying on this information for an investment decision, we recommend confirming the prevailing legislation and notes at the relevant municipal/district level. For DOO structuring and investment-vehicle planning see our DOO incorporation guide and our Montenegro company formation service.

Disputes, competent court and a typical risk map

Jurisdiction over Montenegrin real estate disputes lies, under Zakon o parničnom postupku, with the Osnovni sud at the location of the immovable. Unpaid sale price, developer delivery delays, breaches of the predugovor, common-area disputes, neighbourhood rights, mortgage cancellation (brisanje hipoteke) and use indemnities akin to ecrimisil are the most common headings we see. The distinction between co-ownership (suvlasništvo) and joint ownership (zajedničko vlasništvo) is decisive for the co-owner's power of disposal: in co-ownership each co-owner may freely dispose of their share, whereas joint ownership requires all co-owners to act together. Easement (službenost) entries — particularly access and view rights along the coast — make a major difference and must not be missed in the C list.

Cross-border real estate law

What makes our Turkish clients particularly distinctive is that their Turkish files and their Montenegrin transactions are usually intertwined. The tension between a Turkish court's decision concerning a Montenegrin immovable and the lex rei sitae principle is the spine of these files. Article 21 of the Turkish Code on Private International Law (Act 5718) explicitly subjects real rights over immovables to the law of the country where the immovable is located; this draws the line within which a Turkish judge can issue a title-cancellation order regarding a Montenegrin immovable. On the other side, Zakon o međunarodnom privatnom pravu regulates the recognition and enforcement of foreign court decisions in Montenegrin courts.

The basis of the bilateral enforcement relationship between Turkey and Montenegro lies in the treaties Montenegro inherited from the former Yugoslavia and the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. After independence in 2006, Montenegro succeeded to many bilateral agreements; in practice, however, contractual reciprocity runs along two distinct paths. Where there is no strictly applicable treaty provision, de facto enforcement is possible through the conditions in Article 54 of Act 5718 (finality, no breach of public order, proper service, no breach of exclusive jurisdiction) and through reciprocity. Although Turkey's bilateral-treaty list contains no direct treaty named "Montenegro", in practice Montenegrin decisions are recognised and enforced by Turkish courts on a reciprocity basis, and Turkish decisions are likewise accepted in Montenegro when properly presented through the recognition/enforcement procedure. Montenegro's signature of the 2019 Hague Recognition and Enforcement Convention is a positive infrastructure signal for the period ahead. In every file, the document's origin, apostille status and translation quality directly affect the outcome.

The effect of a divorce decision on the immovable is one of the most frequently recurring themes in our cross-border files. A Turkish divorce and matrimonial-regime liquidation decision does not directly produce effects on the Montenegrin registry; a recognition/enforcement action must be filed in Montenegro and the decision entered in the registry. The reverse is also true: a Montenegrin divorce and property-distribution decision must be processed for recognition or enforcement in Turkey under Articles 50–59 of Act 5718 and then transferred onto the registry. We work in tandem with our property division on divorce service in these intersecting areas. In succession matters, in line with Article 20 of Act 5718, immovable estate is governed by lex rei sitae; a Turkish certificate of inheritance is not, on its own, sufficient for transferring an immovable in Montenegro — a separate ostavinski postupak (succession proceeding) must be conducted there. In the segments of renunciation, reserved share and reduction we frequently see the two laws giving the same family different answers; that is why testamentary structuring becomes critical in dual-jurisdiction planning.

Choice of investment vehicle is the strategic decision most often consulted in cross-border files. In Montenegro, should the immovable be acquired directly by a natural person, or via a DOO (Društvo sa ograničenom odgovornošću)? The DOO structure offers advantages such as the ability to sidestep agricultural-land and similar restrictions, partnership planning and easier corporate financing; it also brings burdens, including VAT (PDV) liability, annual accounting, accountant fees, corporate income tax on rental or sale income at the company level and the cost of winding-up procedures. Setting up a DOO for a single holiday apartment is usually disproportionate; for multi-asset portfolios, a leasing/operating purpose, or to navigate restrictions on direct foreign ownership, the DOO becomes the right vehicle. For broader investment planning, see our Montenegro real estate investment advisory page.

On cross-border mortgages and financing, Turkish banks rarely place a mortgage directly over a Montenegrin immovable; Montenegrin banks lend to Turkish citizens based on residence, proof of income and their own internal criteria. Where a loan obtained in Turkey is used to finance a Montenegrin acquisition, currency, transfer procedure, the reporting obligation to the Central Bank of Montenegro and FX risk in Turkey must be planned from the outset.

Why RoNa Legal

Our office in Budva is one of the few firms with a physical presence in Montenegro that delivers legal services in Turkish. The right to appear at hearings in Montenegro is reserved to members of the Montenegro Bar; for Montenegrin proceedings we therefore operate through a local-counsel coordination model. That model lets the client work through a single point of contact — RoNa Legal — while preserving the local colleague's accredited audience right in court. Cases on the Turkish side are run directly by our partner lawyers. Av. Nazlıcan Hilaloğulları leads our team on Turkish real-estate matters from intake to final judgment; on Montenegrin transactions, due diligence, contracts and litigation are coordinated together with our local partners.

The difference is not packaging point-solutions in a single office; it is the ability to see how different legal systems work simultaneously over the same family, the same company or the same immovable. Files where we run muris muvazaası in Turkey and ostavinski postupak in Montenegro at the same time, register an apartment in Herceg Novi in the spouse's name after recognising the divorce decree in Podgorica, or solve the zoning issue on a parcel acquired through a DOO and invoice rent through the Ankara head office — these are our routine workload.

The quality of our engagement is built on candour. We never give "we will save your title" guarantees on any file; title cancellation and registration cases are highly sensitive to the evidence, the deadlines and the opposing strategy. What we do promise is to build the strongest legal line for your file, discipline your deadlines, run the real-rights registers in two jurisdictions in parallel, and offer you an honest forecast.