Section 1299: Registration of real rights in immovables

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 3061/2558 (2015)

   Acquiring the possessory right in NS.3 Kor land by gift is an acquisition of a real right in immovable property otherwise than by juristic act, so it falls under section 1299 paragraph two: while it remains unregistered it cannot be set up against a third person who acquired for value and in good faith and registered his right in good faith.

   The disputed land was part of the defendants' NS.3 Kor land. Even accepting that the plaintiff had acquired the possessory right to it by gift from A., that was an acquisition of a real right in immovable property otherwise than by juristic act and it had never been registered. The defendants had bought the land from a capital fund without knowing that the plaintiff had gone into occupation and worked it beforehand. The plaintiff therefore could not set her possessory right up against them as third persons who acquired for value and in good faith and registered in good faith, under section 1299 paragraph two.

   Read the full decision (deka.in.th)

2. Supreme Court Judgment No. 1834/2553 (2010)

   Where a landowner declares an intention to dedicate land for the building of a temple and the temple is duly built, the land becomes the temple's property; but because the acquisition is not registered it is incomplete under section 1299 paragraph one, so it cannot be set up or enforced against third parties who were not party to the arrangement, and binds only the parties and their heirs and successors as a personal right.

   The deceased declared an intention to dedicate his land for the building of a temple and the temple was duly built in accordance with that intention. The Court held that the land became the temple's property, but as the acquisition was never registered with the competent official it was incomplete under section 1299 paragraph one, so it could not be set up or enforced against third parties who were not party to the arrangement. It remained effective between the parties, and as against their heirs and successors, as a personal right.

   Read the full decision (deka.in.th)

3. Supreme Court Judgment No. 14884/2558 (2015)

   An agreement recorded on the back of a divorce register by which one spouse gives the other land is a division of marital property under section 1532(a), not a gift needing writing and registration under section 525. Once the registrar records the divorce the division is complete; the absence of a transfer registration leaves the acquisition merely incomplete under section 1299 paragraph one, and the spouse remains a person in a position to have her right registered ahead of others under section 1300.

   On a consensual divorce, defendant 1 agreed on the back of the divorce register to give the applicant the land and the building on it. That was a division of marital property under section 1532(a), not a gift requiring writing and registration under section 525, and once the registrar recorded the divorce the division was complete and the property was the applicant's alone. Defendant 1's failure to register the transfer of his share left her acquisition merely incomplete under section 1299 paragraph one. Since she had possessed the property throughout and had paid off and discharged the mortgage, she was a person entitled to registration ahead of others under section 1300. The plaintiff was only a judgment creditor of defendant 1, not a transferee for value in good faith who had registered in good faith, so the applicant could set her unregistered right up against him under Civil Procedure Code section 287 and the property could not be seized.

   Read the full decision (deka.in.th)

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.