Foreign Deceased: Certificate of Inheritance in Türkiye (2026/153)

A certificate of inheritance is usually known as an uncontested procedure lasting a few weeks. But if the deceased died in 1970, his population record was deleted seventeen years after his death, and some of the heirs are citizens of other countries, the same certificate can become the subject of proceedings lasting more than fifteen years. The case examined by the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation is exactly such a picture: the lower court issued the same certificate of inheritance a second time, and the Chamber, going beyond the first quashing, stressed that separate certificates of inheritance must be issued for movable and immovable property.

In its decision of 12.01.2026 (Docket No. E.2025/3452, Decision No. K.2026/153), the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation unanimously quashed the decision on the certificate of inheritance that had been given in compliance with the earlier quashing.

🗂️ An Estate Opened in 1970 and a Case Filed in 2010

The claimant, stating that the deceased, his uncle, died unmarried and childless on 18.03.1970, asked the civil court of peace to issue a certificate of inheritance. As the deceased had no descendants or spouse, the estate passed to the statutory heirs in the later parentelic groups; in the end a large number of people emerged as shareholders.

By its decision of 13.10.2015 (2010/877 Merits, 2015/879 Decision), the court upheld the claim and divided the deceased's estate among eleven people in portions of 24, 12, 4, 3 and 2 shares, treating the estate as 72 shares. However, there is a principal intervener in the case, who objected to the certificate being issued in that form and appealed the decision.

The source of the dispute is that, although the case looks like an ordinary request for a certificate of inheritance, it carries an international element: both the deceased's nationality at the time of death and the nationality of some of the heirs are unclear.

🔎 The First Quashing: Nationality, Population Record and Reciprocity

The 14th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (since closed) quashed the judgment by its decision of 08.04.2019 (2016/5112 Merits, 2019/3168 Decision). The findings that stand out in the quashing decision are as follows:

This quashing is also clear about the date by reference to which the inquiry is to be made: the criterion is not the date of the claim or the date of the decision but the day the estate opened.

🔁 Complying with the Quashing and Giving the Same Decision

After the file returned to the local court, the court decided to comply with the quashing decision. Yet in the decision given in compliance with the quashing (2022/48 Merits, 2025/540 Decision), the estate was again treated as 72 shares and the shares were divided in the same way as in the first decision.

The principal intervener appealed against this decision as well, putting forward two main objections:

In terms of procedural law, a decision to comply with a quashing binds the court to carry out the investigation in the direction of the quashing. In the practice of the Court of Cassation, failing to carry out the indicated investigations despite complying with the quashing is in itself treated as a ground for quashing. In this case too, the Chamber expressly found that the court had given its decision "without carrying out any investigation or examination in line with the quashing judgment, despite complying with it".

⚖️ MÖHUK Article 20: One Estate, Two Separate Laws

The most instructive part of the decision is that the Chamber ties the dispute directly to a conflict-of-laws rule. The first paragraph of Article 20 of the Act on Private International and Procedural Law No. 5718 (MÖHUK) reads: "Inheritance is governed by the national law of the deceased. Turkish law applies to immovable property located in Türkiye."

The Chamber drew the following conclusion from this provision:

In this system, also referred to in legal writing as the "split succession regime", the estate of the same person can be divided according to two different legal orders. For example, a foreign law may rank nieces and nephews as heirs in a different order from Turkish law, or give surviving relatives shares in different proportions. As the results of two different laws cannot be shown in a single certificate of inheritance, the Chamber's requirement of a distinction is the natural consequence of this system.

The Chamber identified one more deficiency in this case: the certificate of inheritance was drawn up on the assumption that the deceased was a citizen of a particular foreign state, yet there is no information in the file that he was a citizen of that country on the date of death. Without determining the deceased's national law, the law applicable to movables cannot be determined either.

🧭 Investigation Steps Expected from the Court

Reading the two quashing decisions together, the sequence to be followed in the retrial is quite clear:

This sequence is also consistent with the uncontested-jurisdiction nature of certificate-of-inheritance cases. In the practice of the Court of Cassation, it is accepted that determining the heirs and their shares is the judge's duty in such cases and that the principle of ex officio investigation applies. The third paragraph of Article 598 of the Turkish Civil Code also provides that "the invalidity of a certificate of inheritance may be asserted at any time"; a certificate issued after an incomplete investigation may become the subject of cancellation actions later. A decision of the same Chamber on the Treasury's position in the cancellation of a certificate of inheritance is discussed in the article on the Treasury and the inheritance certificate caseTR.

📌 What the Decision Means in Practice

The decision shows concretely why a certificate of inheritance can take time, particularly for old deaths and for families with links abroad. The main conclusions from the case can be summarised as follows:

One notable aspect of the decision is the appeal route. Because the decision given in compliance with the quashing was appealed again and the case predates the regional appeal court system, the 7th Civil Chamber gave its decision "with the right to request rectification of the decision within 15 days of notification". This is a reminder that repealed procedural provisions can still apply in old cases that have lasted a long time. Another intersection of family and inheritance law with a foreign element is discussed in the article on an heir's recognition of a foreign divorce judgmentTR.

❓ Common Questions

For detailed information and legal support, you can contact Savun Law & Consultancy. Contact details are on the contact page, and other articles in the series are in the Precedent DecisionsTR archive.