The Difference between the Revocation of a Fraudulent Act according to Section 237 and the Revocation of Property Transfer according to Section 1300 of the Civil and Commercial Code

Abstract

The revocation of a fraudulent act according to section 237 of the Civil and Commercial Code and the revocation of property transfer according to section 1300 of the Civil and Commercial Code, albeit with some relations, are different in terms of their legal principles, resulting in a number of different legal status. For instance, a revocation of property registration according to section 1300 is a matter of proprietary rights to property, thus only applicable to immovable property and proprietary rights to immovable property. A revocation of a fraudulent act according to section 237, on the other hand, is a matter of personal rights and applicable to both movable and immovable property. Also, a registration of such property is not required for a rule of revocation of a fraudulent act to be applied. Moreover, section 237 is involved when a creditor claims his rights against a debtor whose act was purposely done at a creditor’s disadvantage. A revocation of property registration according to section 1300, on the other hand, neither requires a creditor’s presence, nor takes in consideration whether or not a party who asks for a revocation is at a disadvantage. Only a proof that a party who asks for a revocation indeed has a right of registration before the other party is required. Another factor differentiating the two sections includes the period of revocation. As a result, in order to apply these two sections to the facts of various cases without ambiguity, a study on difference between a revocation of a fraudulent act according to section 237 of the Civil and Commercial Code and a revocation of property transfer according to section 1300 shall and must be made.