Reflection of the Rule of Constructive Destruction (Talaf Ḥukmī) with Respect to Immovable Property in the Law on the Mandatory Official Registration of Immovable Property Transactions

Abstract

The Law on the Mandatory Official Registration of Immovable Property Transactions was enacted in 2024 with the objective of enhancing the status of official documents and consolidating ownership rights within the country. This statute explicitly provides for the implementation of the rule of constructive destruction (talaf ḥukmī), a matter which, prior to its enactment, had been accompanied by uncertainty in relation to real property claims. Judicial practice had also displayed divergent approaches in applying this rule, such that certain courts accepted its application while others rejected it. With the enactment of this law, it was anticipated that the application of the rule of constructive destruction in relation to real property claims would be employed clearly and expressly within judicial practice. Nevertheless, due to internal inconsistencies among its articles and notes, the law has left ambiguities concerning the implementation of constructive destruction with respect to immovable property. Accordingly, in this article, which has been prepared using a descriptive–analytical method and based on library research, we have sought to examine the position of the rule of constructive destruction within the aforementioned law and to answer the question of under what conditions and in what manner the law has recognized the application of constructive destruction. The hypothesis advanced in response to this question is that although the law explicitly recognizes the implementation of the rule of constructive destruction in Article 10, ambiguities in other articles and notes have created challenges in its application. The findings indicate that the law has not clearly provided for the manner of implementing the rule of constructive destruction with respect to immovable property; however, the non-annulment of official documents and the application of constructive destruction to claims brought against them have been accepted. Ambiguities remain with regard to claims arising from unregistered immovable property.