Section 1475, pre-action procedure, and relevant supreme court authorities
During a marriage, spouses may jointly acquire a house, land, or other property even though the relevant title document names only one spouse. This does not automatically mean that the property is the separate property of the spouse named in the document. Whether an asset is marital property must be determined from how and when it was acquired, rather than solely from the name appearing in the register.
Nevertheless, leaving marital property registered in the name of only one spouse creates practical risks. The registered spouse may deal more readily with government authorities, financial institutions, or third parties in relation to the property, and disputes may later arise over a sale, transfer, mortgage, lease, or use of the property as security.
Thai law therefore allows the spouse whose name does not appear in the material document to request that his or her name be entered as a co-owner, without having to file for divorce or wait until damage has occurred.
Requesting co-ownership registration is not a division of marital property
A request to be registered as a co-owner under section 1475 of the Civil and Commercial Code is intended to ensure that a spouse’s legal status, which already exists by operation of law, is accurately reflected in the document of title. It is not a division of marital property into each spouse’s separate share and does not convert the property from marital property into separate property.
Accordingly, even after a court orders the other spouse’s name to be entered as a co-owner, the property remains marital property and continues to be governed by the statutory rules on the management of marital property.
This type of action is therefore distinct from an action for divorce and division of marital property. It is also different from an application to separate marital property or to authorize one spouse to manage marital property exclusively.
ThelLegal principle under section 1475
Section 1475 of the Civil and Commercial Code, as amended by the Civil and Commercial Code Amendment Act (No. 24), B.E. 2567 (2024), provides as follows:
“Where any marital property is of the kind specified in section 456 of this Code or is evidenced by a material document, either spouse may request that his or her name be entered in that document as a co-owner.”
The current provision uses gender-neutral language referring to “either spouse” in line with Thailand’s marriage equality legislation. The right therefore applies to spouses whose marriage has been lawfully registered, irrespective of their sex or gender.
The provision establishes two essential conditions for exercising the right to request co-ownership registration:
- The property must be marital property; and
- The property must be of the kind specified in section 456 or be property evidenced by a material document.
If either condition is absent, section 1475 cannot be invoked.
The property must first be proven to be marital property
Section 1474 provides that marital property includes property acquired by either spouse during the marriage, property acquired by will or by a written gift expressly declaring it to be marital property, and fruits of separate property.
If doubt exists as to whether an asset is marital or separate property, the law presumes it to be marital property. This presumption may, however, be rebutted. A spouse asserting that the asset is separate property may submit evidence showing, for example, that it was acquired before the marriage, inherited, received as a gift, or purchased with separate funds whose source can be clearly traced.
Therefore, the fact that only one spouse is named as owner is not conclusive that the property is separate property. Conversely, property acquired during the marriage is not invariably marital property if evidence establishes that it falls within a statutory category of separate property.
The central issues in such proceedings are thus the source of the property, the date of acquisition, the purpose of the gift or transfer, and the source of the purchase funds, rather than merely the name appearing in the document.
What types of property may be registered in both spouses’ names?
Section 1475 applies to marital property of the kind specified in section 456 or evidenced by a material document. The clearest examples are land, a house together with land, and a condominium unit, for which a title deed or condominium unit title certificate constitutes a document of title and registration procedures are available.
For other assets, such as motor vehicles, bank deposits, shares, securities, or savings certificates, it should not be assumed that a spouse can have his or her name added in every case. Although these assets may be marital property, it is still necessary to consider whether the relevant document is a document of title within section 1475 and whether the responsible authority or service provider permits joint holding or registration.
For ordinary movable property that has no register or material ownership document, such as jewelry, watches, furniture, or other possessory assets, section 1475 cannot be used to add a name to a register, even if the asset is marital property. Rights may instead have to be protected by another remedy, such as an action for a declaration that the property is marital property, delivery of the property, or division when a legal ground for dividing marital property arises.
There is no need to wait for damage to occur
Section 1475 does not require proof that the spouse named in the document is about to sell or transfer the property or otherwise cause damage to the marital property.
If the asset is proven to be marital property, is evidenced by a material document, and is registered in only one spouse’s name, the other spouse may request co-ownership registration even though no fraud or damage has yet occurred.
Section 1475 therefore operates as a preventive safeguard. It makes the spouse’s rights apparent to third parties and reduces the risk that one spouse will deal with the property without notifying the other.
This principle must, however, be distinguished from an application for interim protection pending trial. A request that the court restrain a sale, transfer, disposition, or other juristic act concerning the property requires additional proof of the grounds and necessity prescribed by the Civil Procedure Code. Such protection does not arise automatically upon filing an action under section 1475.
How does joint registration protect a spouse’s rights?
Under section 1476, several important transactions concerning marital property must be managed jointly or undertaken with the other spouse’s consent. These include selling, exchanging, selling with a right of redemption, mortgaging immovable property, leasing immovable property for more than three years, making a gift, entering into a compromise, and providing property as security to an official or a court.
The requirement of joint action or consent applies because the property is marital property; it does not arise solely because both spouses’ names have been registered under section 1475.
In practice, however, recording both spouses in the title document makes their co-ownership status apparent to the Land Office, financial institutions, and third parties. It reduces the opportunity for one spouse to deal with the property merely because only that spouse is named, and it reduces the evidential burden if rights must later be enforced.
Joint registration is therefore more than the administrative addition of a name. It gives registration-level recognition and protection to marital property rights that already exist by law.
The other spouse should first be requested to act before an action is filed
An important procedural point is that section 1475 entitles the unregistered spouse to request the other spouse to cooperate in registering both names. It does not mean that the unregistered spouse may immediately file a unilateral application as a non-contentious case.
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1326/2539 (1996) establishes that section 1475 imposes a legal duty on the spouse named in the document to comply with the other spouse’s request. A refusal or failure to act gives rise to a dispute over rights. The matter must then be brought by a plaint as a contentious case, rather than by a unilateral application.
Before commencing proceedings, a written notice should therefore clearly state:
- The property for which co-ownership registration is requested;
- The relevant document or register;
- The grounds on which the property is considered marital property;
- The right relied upon under section 1475;
- A deadline for the other spouse to act; and
- A reservation of the right to commence proceedings if the request is refused or ignored.
The notice should be delivered by a method that permits receipt to be proved. Evidence of dispatch and receipt is important to show that a request was made but not honored, resulting in a dispute over rights that may be brought before the court.
Supreme court judgment no. 2013/2535 (1992)
Supreme Court Judgment No. 2013/2535 (1992) is an important authority on section 1475. In that case, the spouse whose name was absent sent a written request asking the other spouse to register both spouses as co-owners of land, but the other spouse took no action. The Supreme Court held that this failure constituted a dispute over a statutory right, and the requesting spouse was therefore entitled to bring an action.
The judgment also establishes that, for as long as the marital status continues, the right under section 1475 may be exercised at any time, regardless of how long ago the property was acquired. The right is not a claim subject to the ordinary limitation period.
In addition, where an earlier case was a divorce action and the court did not decide whether the property was marital property or whether a spouse was entitled to be registered as a co-owner, a later action raising those issues is not barred as a repeated action merely because the parties previously litigated a divorce case.
Is the right truly not subject to a limitation period?
Supreme Court Judgment No. 2013/2535 (1992) recognizes that, while the parties remain spouses, the right under section 1475 may be exercised at any time, even if the marital property was acquired many years earlier.
The expression “not subject to a limitation period” does not, however, mean that an action may be brought without restriction in every circumstance. If the marriage has ended, the special right under section 1475 can no longer be exercised in the capacity of a spouse. The party may instead have to pursue a claim for division of marital property or another remedy, each of which may be subject to different time limits and conditions.
If the property has already been transferred to a third party, an action to avoid the juristic act may be subject to the specific limitation periods in section 1480: it must be brought within one year from the date on which the ground for avoidance became known and no later than ten years from the date of the juristic act. It is also necessary to consider whether the third party acted in good faith and provided consideration.
A spouse should therefore not delay unnecessarily. Although the right to request joint registration continues while the marriage subsists, the facts and the legal status of the property may change and make effective protection more difficult.
May the other spouse refuse?
Where the property is marital property within section 1475, the spouse named in the document is legally required to cooperate in registering the other spouse as a co-owner. Dissatisfaction, separation in fact, or an assertion that the registered spouse paid a greater portion of the purchase price does not automatically extinguish the other spouse’s statutory right.
It would nevertheless be inaccurate to say that the court has no evaluative role. The court must still consider the evidence and objections concerning whether:
- The parties remain legally married;
- The property is in fact marital property;
- The property falls within section 1475;
- The property and its material document remain capable of joint registration; and
- Any third-party rights are involved.
If all statutory elements are established, the registered spouse cannot refuse merely because he or she does not wish the other spouse to be named. The court may order registration and provide that, if the uncooperative spouse fails to act, the judgment shall stand in place of that spouse’s declaration of intention.
Practical steps
- First, verify the marital status and collect evidence concerning acquisition of the property, including the marriage certificate, sale and purchase agreement, title deed, condominium unit title certificate, proof of payment, bank statements, loan agreements, and documents showing the source of funds.
- Second, inspect the current register to determine whether the property remains in the other spouse’s name and whether it has been mortgaged, attached, transferred, or otherwise encumbered.
- Third, send a written notice requesting the other spouse’s consent and cooperation in adding the requesting spouse’s name to the material document. Set a reasonable response period and retain proof of delivery.
- Fourth, if the other spouse refuses or fails to act, file a contentious case in the competent Juvenile and Family Court. The relief should include a declaration that the property is marital property, an order requiring the defendant to register the claimant as a co-owner, and an order that the judgment stand in place of the defendant’s declaration of intention if the defendant does not comply.
- Fifth, if there is evidence that the property is about to be transferred, mortgaged, or dealt with in a manner prejudicial to the claimant, an application for interim protection before judgment may be filed together with the action. The applicant must, however, establish the urgent necessity and likely damage required by law.
What if the property has already been transferred?
Section 1475 is most suitable where the property remains registered in the other spouse’s name and another name can still be added to the document. If the property has already been sold or transferred to a third party, an action seeking joint registration alone may be insufficient.
The injured spouse may need to consider an action under section 1480 to avoid a juristic act where one spouse unilaterally managed marital property in a matter requiring joint consent. The right to avoid the transaction is, however, subject to limitation periods, ratification, and protection afforded to a third party who acted in good faith and for consideration.
Accordingly, if circumstances suggest that the property may be disposed of or encumbered, the register should be inspected and legal action considered promptly rather than waiting until the transfer has been completed.
Points of caution
Registration as a co-owner does not mean that the requesting spouse immediately receives a registered fifty-percent share. Division of marital property upon termination of the marriage is a separate process requiring calculation of the assets, liabilities, and each spouse’s rights under the applicable provisions.
Joint registration also does not extinguish the rights of a mortgagee, creditor, or third party that lawfully arose before the joint registration. Nor can section 1475 be used to convert the other spouse’s separate property into marital property.
Before proceedings are commenced, the property’s legal status, the source of funds, registered encumbrances, third-party rights, and the parties’ marital status should therefore all be examined carefully.
Conclusion
A request to be registered as a co-owner of marital property under section 1475 is a preventive measure protecting a spouse’s rights without requiring divorce proceedings or prior damage. The requesting spouse must nevertheless prove that the asset is marital property and is property evidenced by a material document within the law.
In practice, the spouse whose name is absent should first send a written request asking the other spouse to act. If the request is refused or ignored, a contentious action may then be filed. This process records marital property rights in the register, reduces the risk of unilateral dealings, and makes the statutory protection effective in practice.
Joint registration is therefore not a division of property or a step toward separation. It is the formal reflection in the relevant document of co-ownership status already recognized by law, helping prevent future disputes and loss.
