Acquisition of Rights in Rem by a Bona Fide Third Party From a Transferee in Cases Where the Transferor’s Will Has Been Impaired
In terms of rights in rem established on movable property by an unauthorised person in favour of a bona fide third party, whether good faith will be protected at the time of the transaction, and if so, under what conditions, is a legal problem that must be resolved through legislation. The solution to this problem is directly related to the interests of “security of rights” and “security of transactions”. German, Swiss and Turkish legislators did not favour one of these interests at the expense of the other; they envisaged a balancing system. This system is based on how a misleading legal appearance on a movable is created. According to this system, only in cases in which a misleading legal appearance can be attributed to the owner, the good faith of the third party is protected at the time of the transaction. In this respect, a distinction is made between entrusted and involuntarily disposed movables, and it is regulated that good faith shall only be protected in cases where the movable is entrusted. However, whether certain situations fall within the scope of the notion of “entrustment”, which is by nature ambiguous, has been a subject of debate in all three legal systems mentioned above. One of the most controversial issues is whether a movable is considered entrusted in cases in which the will of the transferor is impaired. This study explains the opinions and court decisions on this issue and provides a comprehensive examination of how the problem should be resolved.
Taşınırın Zilyetliğini Devredenin İradesinin Sakatlandığı Durumlarda İyiniyetli Üçüncü Kişinin Zilyetliği Devralandan Ayni Hak Kazanımı
Yetkisiz bir kişi tarafından taşınır üzerinde iyiniyetli üçüncü kişi lehine kurulan ayni haklar bakımından işlem anında iyiniyetin korunup korunmayacağı ve korunacaksa bunun hangi şartlara bağlı olacağı kanunen çözüme bağlanması gereken bir hukuki sorundur. Bu sorunun nasıl çözüleceği “hak güvenliği” ve “işlem güvenliği” menfaatlerini doğrudan ilgilendirmektedir. Alman, İsviçre ve Türk kanun koyucuları bu menfaatlerden birini, diğeri pahasına tercih etmemiş; bunları dengeleyen bir düzen öngörmüştür. Bu düzen, taşınır üzerindeki yanıltıcı hukuki görünüşün nasıl meydana geldiğini esas almaktadır. Buna göre, ancak yanıltıcı hukuki görünüşün malike isnat edilebildiği takdirde işlem anında iyiniyetli üçüncü kişinin ayni hak kazanımı korunmuştur. Bu bakımdan emanet edilmiş ve irade dışı elden çıkmış taşınırlar arasında ayrım yapılmış ve yalnızca taşınırın emanet edildiği durumlarda iyiniyetin korunacağı düzenlenmiştir. Fakat bazı durumların doğası itibariyle belirsizlikler içeren “emanet edilmiş olma” olgusunun kapsamında kalıp kalmadığı anılan üç hukuk düzeninde de tartışma konusu olmuştur. En tartışmalı konulardan biri de zilyetliği devredenin iradesinin sakatlandığı durumlarda taşınırın emanet edilmiş sayılıp sayılmayacağıdır. Bu çalışma, bu sorunla ilgili görüşleri ve mahkeme kararlarını açıklayarak sorunun nasıl çözülmesi gerektiği hakkında kapsamlı bir inceleme yapmaktadır.
In cases where the will of the transferor is impaired by error, fraud, or threat, it has long been a matter of controversy whether the transferee becomes an entrusted possessor or not. This controversy directly concerns the scope of application of Articles 988 and 989 of Turkish Civil Code No. 4721. If, in these cases, the transferee is not deemed as an entrusted possessor, it is not possible for the bona fide third party to acquire a right in rem from him/her at the time of the transaction, and it becomes necessary to examine whether the conditions of acquisitive prescription are met. However, if the opposite view is taken, a bona fide third party is to acquire the right in rem at the time of the transaction. The solution to this debate, which has important practical implications, depends on both conceptual considerations regarding the will to transfer possession and striking an appropriate balance of interests between the owner and the bona fide third party.
The conceptual problem mainly concerns whether there is a difference between the will required to transfer the possession of movables and the will required to conclude legal transactions. If these wills are actually one and the same, then the problem must be solved according to articles 30 et seq. of Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098. However, if these wills are not the same, then it is necessary to explain what is meant by the will to transfer possession and how it differs from the will required to conclude a legal transaction. In arriving at a conclusion thereof, it must also be considered that the transfer of possession can occur with or without delivery. If, as a result, there is a difference between said wills, then the regulations relating to legal transactions are not applicable to the will to transfer possession. Thus, once this conceptual issue has been overcome, it should be examined how cases of error, fraud, and threat affect the will to transfer possession. It should be emphasised that the solution of this problem does not necessarily have to be “lump sum” and that a distinction can be made between defects of will.
The solution to this problem is also decisive for the balance to be established between the interests of the movable’s owner and the bona fide third party. A mere conceptual approach does not guarantee an appropriate balance of interests. Therefore, conceptual results must be reviewed from this perspective. Whereas accepting the transferee as an entrusted person protects the security of transactions, denying such a title protects the security of rights. The former is advantageous for the bona fide third party, while the latter serves the interests of the owner. In cases where possession is transferred by delivery, it is difficult to justify leaving the bona fide third party unprotected in cases of error and fraud, as these defects only affect the motive of the transferor. The transferor delivers the movable under an erroneous conception that does not correspond to reality, without realising that he has made an error or has been deceived. It hardly seems appropriate to place the risk of the owner, who delivered the movable under an erroneous conception of reality, on the bona fide third party. Unlike these cases, in threats, the owner delivers the possession of the movable with complete awareness that he/she is being coerced to do so. In terms of the balance of interests, it does not seem appropriate to equate a threat with an error or a fraud. But here, as well, cases of transfer of possession without delivery must be treated differently. Since it is almost unanimously accepted that types of transfers without delivery consist legal transactions, the interest-based approach regarding these is required to be in line with articles 30 et seq. of Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098.
