Contesting the Registration of Real Estate Rights in BRICS and the Laws of Other Countries
https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2025-12-1-56-79
Abstract
In doctrinal sources, a claim for the recognition of property rights constitutes a special protection method that is not commonly found in the legislation of every country and is not widespread like vindication and negatory actions. However, there has been no sufficient research on the judicial means of correcting the errors that occur during the registration of real estate rights. This article is a comparative legal study of national laws of those countries that provide for the registration of rights (titles) in real estate but not for the acts (deeds) from which the rights emerge. It is commonly held that claims for the recognition of property rights are known only to some legal systems and are not found in the laws of several states. Our study revealed that this is not entirely true. First, claims for the recognition of property rights do exist in the laws of countries of the Romano-Germanic legal family. In several countries, they are enshrined at the legislative level; in other countries, they are formulated at the level of judicial practice and recognized in legal doctrine; while in some countries, this claim relates to contesting the registration of real estate rights. Second, there are analogs of claims for the recognition of property rights also found in common law legal systems, which operate through tort claims arising from two possible violations – conversion (appropriation) and slander of title (libel of the title). The many different methods and instruments for correcting registration errors in the laws of different countries may be described as a single type of claim – the claim for the recognition of property rights. This claim is applied when the reliability of an entry in the registry of the real estate rights is questioned or when the right of an individual entered in the registry is contested. Claims for the recognition of property rights aim to correct erroneous entries in the registry of rights to real estate when an individual considers themselves the owner of a real estate, but the real estate is registered under a different individual.
About the Author
T. Podshivalov
South Ural State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Tikhon Podshivalov – Head, Department of Civil Law and Civil Legal Procedure, Deputy Director of Research, Law Institute
87 Lenina Ave., Chelyabinsk, 454080
References
1. Alexy, R. (2015). Legal certainty and correctness. Ratio Juris, 28(4), 441–451. https://doi.org/10.1111/raju.12096
2. Bondarieva, M. (2019). The role of the notary in the efficient protection of property rights. Access to Justice in Eastern Europe, 4, 60–75. https://doi.org/10.33327/AJEE-18-2.4-a000023
3. Carruthers, P. (2015). A tangled web indeed: The English Land Registration Act and comparisons with the Australian Torrens system. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 38(4), 1261–1299.
4. Chen, L. (2014). Land registration, property rights, and institutional performance in China: Progress achieved and challenges ahead. Hong Kong Law Journal, 44(3), 841–864.
5. Chiang, E. (2015). Reviving the declaratory judgment: A new path to structural reform. Buffalo Law Review, 63(3), 549–608.
6. Curwen, N. (2006). The remedy in conversion: Confusing property and obligation. Legal Studies, 26(4), 570–583.
7. Dauner, B., Heidel, T., & Ring, G. (2008). Nomos Kommentar zum BGB. Bd. 3. Sachenrecht. Nomos. (In German).
8. Douglas, S. (2011). The scope of conversion: Property and contract. Modern Law Review, 74(3), 329–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2011.00850.x
9. Dyson, M., & Green, S. (2014). The properties of the law: Restoring personal property through crime and tort. In M. Dyson (Ed.), Unravelling Tort and Crime (pp. 389–421).
10. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107588820.016
11. Es, P.C. van (2005). De actio negatoria: een studie naar de rechtsvorderlijke zijde van het eigendomsrecht. Doctoral Thesis. Meijers-reeks. Wolf Legal Publishers. (In Dutch).
12. Goscinski, J., & Kubacki, A.D. (2020). Land registration concepts in translation. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law – Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique, 34(17), 1451–1482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-020-09800-y
13. Goymour, A. (2013). Mistaken registrations of land: exploding the myth of ‘Title by registration.’ Cambridge Law Journal, 72(3), 617–650. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000819731300072X
14. Gröschler, P. (2010). Protection of property rights in Germany: Theory and practice. In Civil studies. Vol. IV (pp. 372–402). Peleng. (In Russian).
15. Habersack, M. (1996). Die Mitgliedschaft: Subjektives und «sonstiges» Recht. Mohr Siebeck. (In German).
16. Hochloch, G. (1976). Die negatorischen Anspruche und ihre Beziehungen zum Schadenersatzrecht. A. Metzner. (In German).
17. Huhta, K. (2020). Anchoring the energy transition with legal certainty in EU law. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 27(4), 425–444. https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X20932056
18. Kashyap, A., & Batwara, V. (2022). Legal Analysis of Real Estate Investment Trust Regulation in India. BRICS Law Journal, 9(1), 114–135. https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2022-9-1-114-135
19. Ko, S. (2013). Rectification and indemnity in land title registration: A risk analysis for reform. Hong Kong Law Journal, 43(1), 111–137.
20. Kostkiewicz, J.K., et al. (2011). Schweizerisches Zivilgesetzbuch. Kommentar. Orell Füssli. (In German).
21. Lee, A. (2016). Land registration: validity, priority and statutory interpretation. Hong Kong Law Journal, 46(2), 415–443.
22. Lee, P.-W. (2009). Inducing breach of contract, conversion and contract as property. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 29(3), 511–533.
23. Lees, E. (2013). Title by Registration: Rectification, Indemnity and Mistake and the Land Registration Act 2002. Modern Law Review, 76(1), 62–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12002
24. Lusk, H.F. (1957). Business law: principles and cases. Irwin.
25. Mager, H. (1993). Besonderheiten des dinglichen Anspruchs. Archiv für die civilistische Praxis, 193(1), 68–85. (In German).
26. McIntyre, J. (2016). The declaratory judgment in recent jurisprudence of the ICJ: Conflicting approaches to state responsibility? Leiden Journal of International Law, 29(1), 177–195.
27. Moss, W. (1960). Practice and procedure-right to appeal from a judgment in a jactitory action. Louisiana Law Review, 20(4), 781–787.
28. Okoli, P. (2018). English worldwide freezing orders in Europe: A pragmatic search for legal certainty and the limits of judicial discretion. European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance, 5(3), 250–274. https://doi.org/10.1163/22134514-00503003
29. Penco, A.A. (2016). Derechos reales y derecho inmobiliario registral. Dykinson. (In Spanish).
30. Perinetto, P.A. (2019). Intent and competition law assessment: Useless or useful tool in the quest for legal certainty? European Competition Journal, 15(1), 153–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441056.2019.1625150
31. Picker, E. (1972). Der negatorische Beseitigungsanspruch. L. Röhrscheid. (In German).
32. Podshivalov, T. (2019). Models of Actio Negatoria in the law of Russia and European countries. Russian Law Journal, 7(2), 128–164. https://doi.org/10.17589/2309-8678-2019-7-2-128-164
33. Podshivalov, T. (2020). Conditions for satisfaction of negatory claim. Tomsk State University Journal of Law, 36, 189–202. https://doi.org/10.17223/22253513/36/17. (In Russian).
34. Portuese, A., Gough, O., & Tanega, J. (2017). The principle of legal certainty as a principle of economic efficiency. European Journal of Law and Economics, 44(1), 131–156. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2332016
35. Power, G. (2002). Palazzolo v. Rhode Island: Regulatory takings, investmentbacked expectations, and slander of title. Urban Lawyer, 34(2), 313–328.
36. Reboul-Maupin, N. (2012). Droits des biens. Dalloz. (In French).
37. Ritchie, L. (2008). Re-evaluating declaratory judgment jurisdiction in intellectual property disputes. Indiana Law Journal, 83(2), 957–995.
38. Ritchie, Z. (2013). A fresh look at an old tort: Litigating slander of title in mineral disputes. West Virginia Law Review, 115(3), 1097–1125.
39. Robeck, M. & McNabb, J. (2011). Pennsylvania court raises questions about Marcellus shale gas ownership. Oil and Gas Journal, 109(18), 78–81.
40. Schellhammer, K. (2009). Sachenrecht nach Anspruchsgrundlagen. C.F. Müller. (In German).
41. Squintani, L., & Rijswick, M. (2016). Improving legal certainty and adaptability in the programmatic approach. Journal of Environmental Law, 28(3), 443–470. https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/eqw022
42. Wade, H.W.R. (1941). The concept of legal certainty a preliminary skirmish. Modern Law Review, 4(3), 183–199.
43. Westermann, H., Gursky, K.-H., & Eickmann, D. (2011). Sachenrecht. C.F. Müller. (In German).
44. Wieling, H.J. (2006). Sachenrecht. Bd. 1: Sachen, Besitz und Rechte an beweglichen Sachen. Springer. (In German).
45. Wilhelm, J. (2007). Sachenrecht. De Gruyter. (In German).
46. Windscheid, B. (1870). Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts. Bd 1. Buddeus. (In German).
Review
For citations:
Podshivalov T. Contesting the Registration of Real Estate Rights in BRICS and the Laws of Other Countries. BRICS Law Journal. 2025;12(1):56-79. https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2025-12-1-56-79
Views:
178
Email this article 