Title Deed Cancellation and Registration Lawsuit

When the registration process done in the title deed office is unlawful for any reason, title deed cancellation and registration lawsuits can be filed by the rights holders. In this article, we will provide general information about the title deed cancellation and registration lawsuit and include reasons for cancellation and registration that are frequently encountered in practice.

For the acquisition of ownership of a property, it is necessary to complete the registration processes in the title deed office and transfer procedures. For a transaction made in the title deed to be valid, firstly, it must have a legal reason and be legally accepted. Otherwise, the transaction made in the title deed register will be invalid. If a title deed record is contrary to law, improper, or fraudulent, a title deed cancellation and registration lawsuit can be filed by the person whose right is violated to ensure their property rights, canceling the unlawful registration process and transferring the property to the real rights holder by court order.

What is Fraudulent Registration?

In the simplest terms, fraudulent registration refers to all registration transactions that do not reflect the actual rights situation. According to Article 1024 of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK), a registration based on a legally non-binding act or lacking a legal reason is considered fraudulent registration. The most fundamental reason for title deed cancellation and registration lawsuits is the execution of a 'fraudulent registration' process in the title deed.

The situation of fraudulent registration leads to a mismatch between formal ownership in the title deed and actual ownership. Since fraudulent registration can arise for many reasons, the law does not limit these reasons to a specific number and has been shaped by judicial decisions. For example, different naming such as a lawsuit for cancellation and registration of a title deed based on fraudulent misrepresentation by the testator, or a lawsuit for cancellation and registration of a title deed due to misuse of power of attorney, can lead to confusion. At this point, it should be considered that the legal qualification will be made by the judge (Article 33 of the Civil Procedure Law, HMK).

Against Whom is a Title Deed Cancellation and Registration Lawsuit Filed?

The subject of hostility in a lawsuit pertains to the determination of the parties involved in the case. All lawsuits related to real property ownership, including title deed cancellation and registration lawsuits, are filed against the person who appears as the owner of the property in the title deed records. In the event of the death of the recorded owner, the title deed cancellation and registration lawsuit should be directed against the heirs who have not renounced the inheritance.

If, along with the title deed cancellation and registration lawsuit, it is requested to eliminate a third party's in rem or personal right recorded in the title deed, a separate lawsuit must also be filed against the right holder in the title deed. For example, if the renunciation of in rem and personal rights such as a mortgage, pre-emption right, a real estate sales promise agreement recorded in the deed, right of residence, etc., is sought, a lawsuit must also be filed against those in whose favor these rights are established.

Title registration lawsuits filed due to extraordinary prescription should be jointly filed against the relevant legal entity and the treasury. (Turkish Civil Code, TMK Art. 713)

To determine the subject of hostility, each specific case needs to be examined individually. In title deed cancellation and registration lawsuits, if hostility is inadequately directed, later requests to assert hostility from the missing party may not be accepted, so this matter should be given significant attention.

Competent and Authorized Court

If a lawsuit is filed based on property rights or if the decision resulting from the lawsuit will bring about a change in the title deed registry, then this lawsuit is related to the real property itself. Like all real estate lawsuits, a title deed cancellation lawsuit is filed in the location where the real estate is located. (Civil Procedure Law, HMK Art. 12) The court in the location of the property has absolute authority. In cases of absolute authority, the parties cannot agree to have the lawsuit heard in a court other than the absolutely competent court.

The title deed cancellation and registration lawsuit is filed in the civil court of first instance. (HMK Art. 2/1) Regardless of the nature, size, value, etc., of the property, the court competent to hear the case is the civil court of first instance.

However, the competent court may vary depending on the nature of the dispute.

For a title deed cancellation and registration lawsuit, it is essential that the petition is complete and flawless. The record details of the real estate and all situations that are unlawful in the incident should be clearly stated. In the prepared petition, the issues for which an expert opinion will be requested must be clearly indicated. Also, situations that require attention during the examination and hearing of witnesses should be emphasized. Each fact and evidence relied upon should be included in the lawsuit petition. Material facts or evidence not included in the lawsuit petition or in the response to the opposing party's response may fall under the prohibition of expanding the claim and can lead to a loss of rights.

Reasons for Filing a Title Deed Cancellation and Registration Lawsuit

A title deed cancellation and registration lawsuit can be filed due to legal incompetence.
In cases where transactions are made to appear as sales in the title deed records, but in reality, are intended to be donations and to hide assets from inheritance (known as "muris muvazaası"), a lawsuit can be filed for their cancellation.
Lawsuits can be filed due to construction contracts made in exchange for a share in the property (kat karşılığı inşaat sözleşmesi).
If the power of attorney is misused, a title deed cancellation and registration lawsuit can be filed.
Lawsuits can be filed due to urban planning-related title deed cancellations and registrations.
Lawsuits can be filed in cases involving lifetime support agreements (ölünceye kadar bakma sözleşmesi).
A lawsuit can be filed due to issues related to family residences.
Lawsuits can be filed due to cadastral measurement errors or incorrect records, based on reasons predating the cadastral records.
Title registration lawsuits can be filed due to acquisitive prescription and possession.
In cases of boundary disputes or discrepancies in the title deed records that cannot be resolved through correction lawsuits, a title deed cancellation and registration lawsuit can be filed.
Lawsuits can be filed if a title deed record made without a deed on behalf of someone else does not reflect the actual situation.
The treasury or relevant authorities can file lawsuits for the cancellation of registrations of lands that cannot be recorded as private property in the title deed due to laws such as the Coastal Law or Forest Law.
Lawsuits can be filed due to discrepancies between the actual use of the land and the parcel recorded in the title deed, and other technical errors.

Time Limit for Filing a Title Deed Cancellation Lawsuit

Generally, there is no possibility to file a lawsuit indefinitely. Filing a lawsuit is subject to a statute of limitations or a preclusive period. The most important difference between the two is that if the law specifies a period as "preclusive," a lawsuit not filed within this period will be dismissed by the judge on their own initiative, even if the defendant does not object. If a statute of limitations is involved, it must be raised as an objection by the defendant. The statute of limitations objection is subject to a specific time frame in the trial.

Since a title deed cancellation and registration lawsuit is based on property rights and essentially in rem rights, it is not subject to the statute of limitations as a rule. In rem rights can always be asserted. However, as mentioned above, some title deed cancellation and registration lawsuits may arise from special laws, and these situations may have specifically determined statute of limitations and preclusive periods.

Therefore, it is important to determine the relevant legislation according to the specific nature of each case.

How Does the Lawsuit Process Work?

In a title deed cancellation and registration lawsuit, opportunities for examination such as discovery, witness testimonies, expert opinions, and appraisals can be utilized. Additionally, the parties can consult a real estate valuation expert at their own expense and obtain an expert report. Title deed records, other official records and documents, and field studies and research related to the property in question can be used as evidence. The inconsistency between the actual situation of the property ownership and the title deed registry should be demonstrated through all such evidence and similar ones, and the propositions fundamental to the lawsuit must be proven in court.

In a title deed cancellation and registration lawsuit, the registration provision in the title deed is altered by the court decision, and the ownership of the property is acquired through the court decision. Since title deed cancellation and registration lawsuits relate to the property itself, they cannot be executed until the court decision becomes final.

In the lawsuit petition for title deed cancellation and registration, the title deed registration details of the property, the situation on the ground, and the legal violations in the transaction according to the characteristics of the incident must be clearly described. Accurate information in the lawsuit file, including title records and documents that form the basis of the records, will reduce time loss. Especially in the lawsuit petition, it should be emphasized what aspects require expert examination and what should be considered during the discovery process or while hearing witnesses. The detailed specification of such matters is inevitable as it may put the right holders in a difficult position, necessitating the help of a skilled lawyer.

How is the Scope of Damages Determined in a Title Deed Cancellation and Registration Lawsuit?

According to Article 1007 of the Turkish Civil Code No. 4721, the state is responsible for all damages suffered by a person due to the incorrect keeping of the title deed registry. The actual damage incurred by the title deed owner due to the cancellation of the title deed registration should determine the amount of compensation. Actual damage is the decrease in the property owner's assets due to the cancellation of the title deed registration. The amount of compensation should be such that it would restore the property owner's assets to the state they would have been in had the damaging action not occurred.

The real damage suffered by the individual will be determined based on the valuation date for determining the amount of compensation, which is the date the damage occurred. As of the date of the damage, the nature and value of the property whose title deed is cancelled should be determined.

Precautionary Measures in a Title Deed Cancellation and Registration Lawsuit

The filing of a title deed cancellation and registration lawsuit does not mean that the property cannot be sold. The owner has the right to dispose of the property as they wish under the right of ownership. However, the plaintiff who requests title deed cancellation and registration can seek a precautionary measure regarding the property to prevent irreparable damage and avoid any loss of rights. If the request for a precautionary measure is accepted, the sale of the property will be suspended during the lawsuit.

Is Mediation Mandatory in a Title Deed Cancellation and Registration Lawsuit?

Mediation is not mandatory in a title deed cancellation and registration lawsuit. The plaintiff can file a title deed cancellation and registration lawsuit at the civil court of first instance in the location of the property.

Title Deed Cancellation and Registration Lawsuit Fee

In a title deed cancellation and registration lawsuit, the value of the property as of the date of the lawsuit is taken as the basis. The value of the property should be stated in the lawsuit petition. Accordingly, the fee expenses will be determined. As a rule, the title deed cancellation and registration lawsuit is subject to a proportional fee. The fee to be paid when filing the lawsuit is 0.6831% of the value of the property.

Supreme Court Decisions Related to Title Deed Cancellation and Registration Lawsuits

Transactions of title deed transfers made through the misuse of power of attorney are unlawful, and grievances created by such transactions are remedied through title deed cancellation and registration lawsuits.

Supreme Court 1st Civil Chamber, Decision No. 2014/14022 E., 2016/2002 K., Date 22.02.2016:

Even if there is no clear provision in the contract on how the power of attorney is to be exercised, or if the transaction remains within the limits of external representation authority, the agent is always obliged to act in accordance with the interests and will of the principal, and to avoid actions that would harm them."

Supreme Court 1st Civil Chamber, Decision No. 2020/3464 E., 2021/4519 K., Date 22.09.2021:

"Under the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, the duty of loyalty and care is the foremost obligation of the agent towards the principal. Article 506 states: 'The agent is obliged to fulfill the power of attorney personally. However, the agent may delegate the task to another in cases where they are authorized or if the situation requires or customary practice allows it. The agent is obliged to perform the tasks and services they undertake with loyalty and care, considering the legitimate interests of the principal. In determining the liability arising from the agent's duty of care, the behavior expected of a prudent agent undertaking similar tasks and services in that field is taken as the basis.' Therefore, the agent is always under the obligation to act in accordance with the interests and will of the principal and to avoid actions that would harm them. The scope of the power of attorney is determined according to the nature of the task to be performed if not explicitly stated in the contract. Even if there is no clear provision in the contract on how the power of attorney is to be exercised, or if the transaction remains within the limits of external representation authority, the agent's obligation always exists. Even if the principal authorizes the agent to sell a property to anyone for any price, specifying even the buyer, this does not grant the agent the right to make sales beyond reasonable limits by ignoring the rules of honesty, loyalty, and care. The agent who performs an action or transaction that is not in the interest of the principal will be liable according to the last paragraph of the mentioned article."

Supreme Court 1st Civil Chamber, Decision No. 2014/8229 E., 2015/7977 K., Date 01.06.2015:

"The lawsuit is based on the claim that the power of attorney was obtained by fraud and the power of attorney was misused. The plaintiff claims that they asked the defendant for a loan, and the defendant stated that they could lend money on the condition that a promissory note is drafted by a notary. Upon going to the notary, the defendant, by fraudulent means, had a power of attorney drafted that included the authority to sell, instead of a promissory note, and using this power of attorney, not involving the plaintiff, the property with parcel number 228 was registered in the name of the defendant. The defendant argued that the lawsuit was filed after the preclusive period and that the conveyance was not fraudulent, advocating for the dismissal of the lawsuit. The court dismissed the case on the grounds that it was filed after the preclusive period based on the legal reason of fraud. However, from the content and manner of the claim, it is understood that the lawsuit is based on the allegation that the power of attorney was obtained by fraud, not the legal reason of fraud. As known, the claim that the power of attorney was obtained by fraud also includes the allegation of misuse of the power of attorney. In such a case; considering that lawsuits based on the legal reason of misuse of the power of attorney are not subject to any statute of limitations or preclusive period, the essence of the case should have been examined and a decision made accordingly, instead of issuing a judgment in the written form."

According to the Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 and the established precedents of the Supreme Court, transactions conducted by individuals lacking discernment (mental capacity) have no binding or validity. In other words, transactions made by a person lacking discernment are considered as if they were never made. In lawsuits regarding title deed registrations based on legal incapacity, it is necessary to examine all medical documents, such as reports and hospital records, indicating the person's incapacity, obtain an expert report from the Forensic Medicine Institute about the person's lack of discernment, and listen to witnesses.

Supreme Court 1st Civil Chamber, Decision No. 2018/3025 E., 2019/5764 K., Date 11/11/2019:

"... considering the contents of the file, the evidence collected, the legal and lawful reasons the judgment is based on, and the accuracy in the appraisal of evidence, especially; the conclusive court decision that determined the plaintiff's incapacity on the date of the contract, the defendants, who are siblings of the plaintiff, were aware or should have been aware of the plaintiff's incapacity, in other words, they cannot benefit from the protection of Article 1023 of the Turkish Civil Code. Thus, there is generally no error in the decision to accept the request for cancellation and registration of the title deed for the properties."

This judgment indicates that the court must investigate the condition of incapacity and issue a title deed cancellation and registration decision if incapacity is present.

Supreme Court 1st Civil Chamber, Decision No. 2021/1624 E., 2021/5973 K., Date 25.10.2021:

"It must be noted that, as expressed in Article 15 of the Civil Code, since a person lacking discernment does not have a valid will, their transactions cannot have legal consequences, except in specified exceptional cases under the law. (Supreme Court General Assembly of Civil Law, Decision dated 11.6.1941, No. 4/21) In light of the above principles and legal provisions, the importance of determining a person's capacity in terms of personal and property law becomes evident. In such cases, it is mandatory to collect all evidence shown by the parties, obtain clear and concrete information from witnesses in this regard, and completely bring medical reports, observation papers, and radiographs, if any, of the person alleged to be incapacitated. Besides, although the opinion of an expert does not bind the judge as per Article 282 of the Civil Procedure Law No. 6100, determining biological and psychological reasons like mental illness, mental weakness, intoxication, which are not only related to biological factors but also to psychological elements such as consciousness, perception, and will, often requires special and technical knowledge beyond the field of judiciary. Given that the discernment is a relative concept and varies according to the action and transaction, it is necessary to obtain a report from the most competent health institution, especially from the Forensic Medicine Institute. Indeed, Article 409/2 of the Civil Code prescribes that mental illness or mental weakness shall be determined by an expert report."

TMK Article 713/1 stipulates that in cases where the property ownership is acquired through extraordinary prescription, and the party files for title deed cancellation and registration instead of a lawsuit for the determination of ownership, the court shall decide on the determination of ownership even if it has not been requested.

Supreme Court 8th Civil Chamber, Decision No. 2010/4282 E, 2010/5509 K., Date 11.11.2010:

"The lawsuit is based on the legal grounds of possession leading to acquisition, inheritance from the deceased, and partition, under TMK Art. 713/1, Art. 996, and Article 14 of the Land Registry Law No. 3402, for the transfer of ownership through title deed cancellation and registration. Although the court dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiff did not request the determination of ownership, this view of the court is not acceptable. The plaintiff initially requested title deed cancellation and registration in the lawsuit petition. However, the discovery revealed that a channel belonging to the State Hydraulic Works (DSI) passes under the property and it was not expropriated. According to the information and documents in the file, DSI started the construction of the channel in 1999 and completed it in 2007. As a rule, in registration, title deed cancellation, and registration lawsuits based on possession leading to acquisition under TMK Art. 713/1 and Article 14 of the Land Registry Law No. 3402, a decision is made to register the property in the name of the plaintiff in the title deed. In the specific case, although the property was not expropriated due to the channel made between 1999 – 2007, the subject area of the lawsuit has turned into public property due to the channel. Decisions on registration, title deed cancellation, and registration cannot be made for such areas anymore. If the conditions for acquisition are met, a decision should be made either for title deed cancellation and registration or for the determination of the plaintiff's ownership of the subject area. This is also the practice of the Supreme Court and the Chamber. In such cases, the plaintiff cannot be asked to choose any right in the form of an optional right. As in the specific case, the court should accept that lawsuits of the nature of registration or title deed cancellation and registration turn into lawsuits for the determination of ownership when such a situation is determined. In this specific case, this has occurred. There is no choice to be presented or asked of the plaintiff. Considering all the information and documents in the file, it is determined that the conditions and duration of acquisition have been met in favor of the plaintiff, and the 20-year acquisition period had already elapsed by 1999 when DSI started constructing the channel."

Fraudulent registration is a common reason for filing title deed cancellation and registration lawsuits. If the legal transaction underlying the registration has not been made in accordance with the prescribed form by law, if the documents that are the basis of the registration are forged or irregularly arranged, or if the registration is made without any arrangement, the transaction will be considered fraudulent registration and can always be corrected upon request by the owner or the Title Deed Directorate. There is no statute of limitations or preclusive period for lawsuits filed due to fraudulent registration. The right of property is one of the most important rights a person has after the right to life and health, protected by the constitution. Therefore, states maintain property records themselves through Title Deed Directorates and conduct property transfers through official contracts.

Supreme Court 1st Civil Chamber, Decision No. 2021/8240 E., 2021/5277 K., Date 07.10.2012:

"The lawsuit is based on the request for title deed cancellation-registration due to fraudulent registration. The plaintiff claims that in a lawsuit filed against them by the defendant ... in 2016, under case number 2016/8, the entire property shared with the plaintiff was ordered for cancellation and registration instead of just the expropriated part, and this decision was reflected in the title deed. The plaintiff alleges both defendants are responsible for the resulting fraudulent registration and requests cancellation of the title deed for the non-expropriated part and its registration in their name. The court accepted the lawsuit against TCDD but did not issue a judgment against the defendant ...; upon the appeal of the Title Deed Directorate, the Regional Court of Justice dismissed the lawsuit against the Title Deed Directorate due to lack of hostility and awarded attorney's fees; the decision was appealed by the plaintiff. Indeed, it is evident that fraudulent registration was carried out as if the entire property was expropriated without considering the expert report and map attached to the court decision regarding the lawsuit filed by TCDD against the plaintiff. Therefore, the Title Deed Directorate is undoubtedly responsible for the fraudulent registration due to not considering the expert report and map attached to the court decision. It is not correct to dismiss the lawsuit against the defendant ... due to lack of hostility and to award attorney's fees."

Supreme Court 1st Civil Chamber, Decision No. 2014/10869 E., 2015/13384 K., Date 19.11.2015:

"As mentioned in the reversal decision, one of the principal rules governing the maintenance of the title deed register is the principle of legality, i.e., the reliance of registration on a legal reason. According to Article 1025 of the Turkish Civil Code, if the legal reason for registration is invalid, the registration is also invalid. Moreover, official documents (official certificates, court decisions, etc.) are among the main elements of the Title Deed Registry Regulation as per its Article 7. According to these legal regulations, if the legal transaction that forms the basis of the registration has not been made in accordance with the prescribed form by law, if the documents that are the basis of the registration are forged or irregularly arranged, or if the registration is made without any arrangement, the transaction will be considered fraudulent registration and can always be corrected upon request by the owner or the Title Deed Directorate. In the specific case; since there is no application, transaction document, official contract, and basis document for the transfer and sale transactions of the subject properties, and the transactions shown as the basis are related to other properties, it is clear that all transfer and sale transactions based on the transactions dated 18.02.1994 and 11.04.1994 are of fraudulent registration."

Decision Regarding the Completion of Proportional Fee in Title Deed Cancellation and Registration Lawsuit

Supreme Court 2nd Civil Chamber, Decision No. 2011/780 E., 2011/14923 K., Date 05.10.2011:

"The lawsuit is for the cancellation and registration of the title deed and the removal of the mortgage subsequently placed on the property due to the family home (Civil Code Art. 194). Since the plaintiff filed a lawsuit for two separate transactions, there are two independent claims. The plaintiff has paid the proportional advance fee on the mortgage amount but has not paid the proportional advance fee for the title deed cancellation and registration request. Therefore, the plaintiff should be given time to complete the proportional advance fee calculated on the sale price of 30,000 TL on 8.7.2005 (Law on Fees, Articles 30-32); after completion, the collected evidence should be evaluated and a decision made. The decision to enter into the merits of the case regarding the title deed cancellation and registration request without completing the fee is contrary to procedure and law and requires reversal."

Decision Regarding the Requirement to Collect Fixed Fee and Fixed Attorney Fee Due to Clause in Consensual Divorce Protocol

Supreme Court 2nd Civil Chamber, Decision No. 2016/24954 E., 2018/6762 K., Date 28.05.2018:

"The principal and consolidated lawsuit filed by the plaintiff relates to the title deed cancellation and registration request arising from the protocol formulated in the consensual divorce lawsuit. Lawsuits for title deed cancellation and registration stemming from consensual divorce cases are subject to a fixed fee. However, the court has charged a proportional fee for these lawsuits. Therefore, the plaintiff's payment of the proportional fee in the principal and consolidated lawsuit, and the decision to collect the remaining fee from the defendant is incorrect and necessitates reversal."

Decision Regarding the Misuse of Power of Attorney Given for Construction Agreement in Exchange for Land Share

Supreme Court 6th Civil Chamber, Decision No. 2021/483 E., 2021/1698 K., Date 23.11.2021:

"For the court to make a decision about the subject right in a lawsuit, the persons involved must indeed have the status of plaintiff and defendant. If the persons shown as parties in a lawsuit have the capacity and authority to pursue the case, but one of them does not actually have the status of plaintiff or defendant, the case cannot be decided on its merits and is dismissed due to lack of standing. The lack of party status is not a procedural law issue but a substantive law issue related to the essence of the subjective right in question. Therefore, the lack of party status, which prevents the birth of the right in question between the persons appearing as parties, is an objection that can be raised at any stage of the trial and must be considered by the court on its own. In the specific case, regarding whom the lawsuit should be directed, the case in hand is not a compensation lawsuit but a title deed cancellation and registration lawsuit, and the person against whom the title deed cancellation and registration decision will be made is the property owner. Therefore, the lawsuit for title deed cancellation and registration must be directed against the property owner. Since the defendant ... is not the property owner but the person who carried out the title deed transaction by proxy, they do not have the status of a party in the lawsuit. The court should have dismissed the lawsuit against the defendant ... due to lack of party status, and it is incorrect to reject the appeal of the defendant's attorney on the merits. The appellate court decision is overturned, and the first-instance court decision is reversed."

Fraudulent Misrepresentation by the Testator as a Reason for Title Deed Cancellation and Registration Lawsuits

Supreme Court 1st Civil Chamber, Decision No. 2015/16239 E., 2019 /391 K., Date 22.01.2019:

"In the specific case, based on the testimony of witnesses, it appears that the testator stayed with the plaintiff son Kemal and had no problems with any of his children, and there is no concrete evidence to suggest that the testator hid assets from other heirs. It was found that the testator sold his shares in the disputed properties to the defendant daughter via a transfer contract in 1988, received the payment, and later appointed the defendant's spouse as an agent to record the transfer in the deed, transferring the shares to the defendant. Considering these specific facts and the above principles, it is concluded that the transfer is a real sale. Therefore, the decision to dismiss the lawsuit is incorrect due to an error in evaluating the evidence."

In fiduciary transactions, if the trustor (beneficiary) does not fulfill the return according to the trust agreement, the entrustor can demand the return of the subject matter. If the trustor fails to fulfill this demand, the entrustor can resort to legal action. An entrustor suffering a loss of rights due to a fiduciary transaction can file a lawsuit for title deed cancellation and registration to remedy the loss. In resolving disputes arising from trust agreements, the Supreme Court's Unification of Judgments decision dated 05.02.1947, No. 20/6, and subsequent precedent decisions given by the Supreme Court over the years are taken as the basis.

Supreme Court 14th Civil Chamber, Decision No. 2013/12550 E., 2014/420 K., Date 09.01.2014:

"According to the Supreme Court Unification of Judgments decision dated 05.02.1947, No. 20/6, a fiduciary agreement (inanç sözleşmesi) can only be proven with written evidence. This written evidence must be a document brought by the parties and bearing their signatures. Even if such a specified written document is not available, and although it may not be sufficient to prove the entire dispute between the parties, if there is a 'beginning of evidence' document indicating the occurrence of such an agreement, such as an unsigned handwritten note or letter by the trustor (inanılan), a document typed or printed but bearing the trustor's initials, or unauthenticated fingerprinted or sealed documents, then according to Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Law No. 6100, a fiduciary agreement can be proven with all types of evidence, including witnesses. If there is no written evidence or 'beginning of evidence,' the fiduciary agreement can also be proven with definitive evidence like confession (HMK Art. 188) or oath (HMK Art. 225 and following). If the plaintiff relies on oath evidence, the court must remind the plaintiff of this right."