Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-fmk2r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-17T23:19:23.765Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Registration of Immovable Property in Japan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

A. A. Zorab
Get access

Extract

Land tenure has always played an important part in the history of law. In feudal times the greater fortunes consisted in land inasmuch as feudal rights were exercised over its inhabitants. After the disappearance of feudalism in Europe land continued to be an important source of wealth until about a century ago.

Type
Research Article
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 9 , Issue 4: Special Issue: De Conflictu Legum, Essays Presented to RD Kollewijn and J Offerhaus , October 1962 , pp. 537 - 554
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1962

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. These Books were fundamentally revised in 1948. See § 7.

2. In the eighteenth century the celebrated judge Ōoka, Echizen-no-kami lived whose astute decisions are narrated in Mitford, , Tales of old Japan.Google Scholar

3. de Becker, J. E., The principles and practice of the Civil Code of Japan, p. III.Google Scholar

4. Reischauer, Edwin O., Japan past and present, p. 85–86.Google Scholar

5. Saburo, lenaga, History of Japan, p. 135.Google Scholar

6. Reischauer, Edwin O., op. cit., p. 94.Google Scholar

7. Wagatsuma, Sakae (professor of Tokyo University), Minpoo Soosoku, p. 184–188.Google Scholar

8. Idem, Bukkenhoo p. 232.Google Scholar

9. Idem, Bukkenhoo p. 13–14.Google Scholar

10. Idem, Bukkenhoo p. 14.Google Scholar

11. Idem, Bukkenhoo p. 13.Google Scholar

12. de Becker, J. E., op. cit., p. 143.Google Scholar

13. Ishida, Bunjiro, Bukkenhooron, p. 39.Google Scholar

14. Wagatsuma, Sakae, Bukkenhoo, p. 50–51.Google Scholar

15. Decisions of Supreme Court: 25 Oct. 1913 (purchase); 30 May 1921, 26 March 1948 (legacy).

16. Shimoyama, Saburo, Keiyaku Shoosho no hooritsu chishiki, p. 3–6.Google Scholar

17. Article 557–1 Civil Code.

18. Immovables Registration Law, article 8.

19. Idem, article 1.

20. Idem, article 14–16.

21. Idem, article 25.

22. Idem, article 3.

23. Land Ledger Law, articles 18, 47. House Ledger Law, articles 14, 26.

24. Idem, article 106.

25. Supreme Court Decisions, 22 02 1926, 24 March 1933.Google Scholar

26. Immovables Registration Law, article 1.

27. de Becker, J. E., op. cit., p. 178.Google Scholar

28. Supreme Court Decision, 15 10 1908.Google Scholar

29. A party may under article 541 Civil Code rescind a contract if the other party defaults.

30. Incapacity for action, fraud or duress are grounds on which a juristic act may be avoided.

31. Article 121 Civil Code in the case of avoidance and article 545–1 in the case of rescission.

32. Article 96–3 Civil Code in case of fraud and article 545 in case of default by a party. But in cases of incapacity for action and of duress the retroactive force is not limited.

33. The chief of the house, usually the eldest male, had considerable legal and economic powers over the other members whether he lived with them or not.

34. If the head of the house wished to provide something for the other children he had recourse to gifts or legacies but it could be done only without prejudice to the legal portion of the heir.

35. Renouncing of the rights of succession is common practice nowadays in Japan. In order to keep the old tradition of family property descending to a single heir alive, the brothers and sisters voluntarily renounce their rights in favour of the eldest son.

36. Supreme Court Decision, 2 03 1918.Google Scholar

37. Idem, 10 Oct. 1927.

38. Idem, 8 July 1932.

39. Idem, 15 April 1918.

40. Idem, 7 June 1933.

41. Idem, 18 Sept. 1942.

42. Idem, 29 Jan. 1943, 27 July 1956.

43. Wagatsuma, Sakae, Bukkenhoo, p. 84Google Scholar, points out that the research of third parties in respect of the title of their predecessor is made very difficult by such practices.

44. Immovables Registration Law, article 26.

45. Idem, article 35–2.

46. Supreme Court Decision, 30 04 1926Google Scholar. Authors hold that only the first recourse should have applied.

47. Idem, 8 Oct. 1919.

48. Idem, 28 Dec. 1937.

49. Idem, 13 June 1921, 20 June 1941. Authors hold that A must have recourse to the first remedy.

50. Idem, 8 Nov. 1928.

51. Suehiro, Gentaro, Bukkenhoo I, p. 154Google Scholar. Ishida, Bunjiro, op. cit., p. 108.Google Scholar

52. Kawana, Kenjiro, Bukkenhooyooron, p. 14.Google Scholar

53. Wagatsuma, Sakae, Bukkenhoo, p. 94.Google Scholar

54. Supreme Court Decision, 15 10 1908.Google Scholar

55. Idem, 28 Sept. 1938.

56. Idem, 18 Dec. 1942.

57. Idem, 24 May 1939.

58. Idem, 1 June 1912, 10 Dec. 1921.

59. Immovables Registration Law, article 4.

60. Idem, article 5.

61. Supreme Court Decisions, 21 02 1927, 13 June 1931.Google Scholar

62. Idem, 19 April 1920, 31 March 1931, 19 Dec. 1950.

63. Idem, 1 Dec. 1914.

64. Idem, 22 April 1927.

65. Idem, 27 Oct. 1921.

66. Idem, 14 May, 1915, 19 April 1931.

67. Idem, 5 Aug. 1932.

68. Idem, 17 Feb. 1933.

69. Idem, 9 April 1935.

70. Wagatsuma, Sakae, op. cit., p. 150–152.Google Scholar