มาตรา 37 — Domicile
Statutory text (Thai original)
ภูมิลำเนาของบุคคลธรรมดา ได้แก่ถิ่นอันบุคคลนั้นมีสถานที่อยู่เป็นแหล่งสำคัญ
Verbatim from the Royal Gazette / Office of the Council of State
คำแปลภาษาอังกฤษ
The domicile of a natural person is the place where he has his principal residence.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 37 is part of Book 1 (General Principles) of the Thai Civil and Commercial Code. This entry is awaiting firm-authored commentary; the statutory text above is verbatim from the Office of the Council of State (OCS Krisdika) Thai source, with the English translation from the FAO/UN FAOLEX repository. Always rely on the Thai original for legal proceedings.
Why this matters in practice
For lawyers: house registration creates only a rebuttable presumption of domicile; the court will look at the actual centre of the person's life, including where they work, sleep, and own property. A person who vacates a registered address without formally notifying the authorities may still be found to have moved their domicile if the facts show they do not intend to return. For laypeople: your legal domicile is your main home — where you actually live, not necessarily where your name is registered.
Legislative history
Part of the original Civil & Commercial Code codification; no major subsequent amendment.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 5698/2541 (1998)
Retaining one's name in a house register does not preserve domicile there if the person has in fact established their principal residence elsewhere.
Both defendants had moved away from the address listed in the house registration, establishing their actual residence elsewhere. The Supreme Court held that domicile had shifted to their new principal residence regardless of the reason for the move, and that merely retaining their names in the old register without actually notifying a change was insufficient to preserve the old domicile. Service of process at the old address was therefore invalid.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 5684/2538 (1995)
Where a person deregisters from their former address without establishing a new principal residence, and the deregistration appears motivated by debt evasion, the former address remains their domicile.
The defendant had deregistered from their former address but had not registered at any new address, making it impossible to identify any new domicile. The Court inferred that without a clear intent to relocate, the former address remained the domicile, especially where the deregistration appeared designed to evade creditors.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.