When dealing with real estate in Japan, understanding the intricacies of the property registration system is crucial. The Japanese system broadly categorizes registrations into those concerning rights (権利に関する登記 - kenri ni kansuru tōki) and those concerning the physical description of the property (表示に関する登記 - hyōji ni kansuru tōki). While litigation to enforce rights registrations based on a court judgment is a well-established mechanism, the situation is more nuanced for display registrations, particularly those related to buildings. This article explores whether an interested party can sue another private party in Japan to compel them to apply for or correct a building's description registration.

Understanding Display Registrations: The Foundation of Physical Property Data

Display registrations serve as the official record of a property's physical characteristics. For buildings, this includes details such as location, type, structure, and floor area. The primary purpose of these registrations is to accurately reflect the objective, physical reality of the property, thereby ensuring clarity and safety in real estate transactions.

A key feature of the display registration system in Japan is the significant role and authority of the legal affairs bureau's registrar (登記官 - tōkikan). Under Article 28 of the Real Property Registration Act (不動産登記法 - Fudōsan Tōkihō, hereinafter RPRA), the registrar has the power, and in some cases the duty, to investigate the physical status of real property and make or correct display registrations ex officio (職権 - shokken), meaning on their own authority, if they find discrepancies or necessary updates. This ex officio capability is a fundamental distinction from rights registrations (e.g., for ownership transfer or mortgage creation), which are primarily initiated by applications from the interested parties.

Generally, applications for new display registrations (such as for a newly constructed building) or for changes to existing display registrations are made unilaterally by the property owner or the person whose name appears in the "hyōdai" section (表題部 - hyōdaibu, the section of the registry detailing the property's physical description) of the registration record. [cite: 14] This contrasts with rights registrations, which typically require a joint application by both the person acquiring the right (the obligee) and the person ceding the right (the obligor). [cite: 14] It is this principle of joint application for rights that underpins Article 63(1) of the RPRA, which allows for a registration to be made based on a final and conclusive judgment ordering a party to complete a registration application.

The General Stance: Limitations on Suing to Compel Display Registration Applications

The prevailing view, supported by a significant 1983 (Showa 58) response from the Ministry of Justice concerning a land area correction registration (chiseki kōsei tōki), is that Article 63(1) of the RPRA does not generally apply to compelling another party to apply for a display registration. [cite: 14] The rationale is that since display registrations usually involve unilateral applications by the owner, the premise of a joint application (which Article 63(1) effectively substitutes one party for when they are uncooperative) is absent. [cite: 14] Therefore, a court judgment ordering an owner to, for example, apply for a correction to their building's floor area, might not be directly enforceable through the mechanisms of Article 63(1) to effectuate the registration itself.

This doesn't mean that disputes concerning the physical facts of a property are without resolution, but rather that a direct lawsuit aimed at forcing another private individual to lodge a display registration application is often not the recognized or necessary path. The system leans on the owner's duty to maintain accurate registrations and the registrar's ex officio powers.

Alternative Legal Routes for Specific Display Registration Scenarios

While a direct suit to compel an application for a display registration from an unwilling private party faces hurdles, the Japanese legal system provides alternative avenues to achieve similar practical outcomes, especially when an interested party's rights are affected by the lack of, or error in, a display registration.

1. Title Registration (表題登記 - Hyōdai Tōki) for New Buildings

When an individual (let's call them A) purchases a newly built but as-yet-unregistered building from the original owner/builder (B), and B fails to undertake the initial "title registration" (hyōdai tōki), A is not left without recourse. A hyōdai tōki is the very first registration that brings a new building onto the official property register, detailing its physical characteristics and identifying its original owner.

Instead of suing B to compel B to apply for the hyōdai tōki, A has more effective options:

• Ownership Confirmation Suit: A can file a lawsuit against B to confirm A's ownership of the building or to compel B to perform the actions necessary for an ownership transfer registration. If A obtains a final judgment affirming their ownership, A can then apply directly for an "ownership preservation registration" (所有権保存登記 - shoyūken hozon tōki) under Article 74(1)(ii) of the RPRA. [cite: 15] Crucially, upon receiving such an application for ownership preservation of an unregistered building, the registrar is mandated by Article 75 of the RPRA to first create the hyōdai tōki ex officio. [cite: 15]
• Subrogation based on a Transfer Judgment: Alternatively, if A obtains a judgment ordering B to complete the procedures for an ownership transfer, A can, under the principle of obligee's subrogation (債権者代位権 - saikensha daiiken, Civil Code Article 423), apply on B's behalf for B's hyōdai tōki and subsequent ownership preservation registration. [cite: 15] Once these are completed in B's name, A can then, based on the same judgment, unilaterally apply for the ownership transfer registration from B to A, as per Article 63(1) of the RPRA. [cite: 15]

In both scenarios, the legal system allows A to secure their rights and ensure the building is properly registered without needing to directly sue B for the specific act of applying for the hyōdai tōki. The necessity for such a specific claim is obviated by these alternative procedures.

2. Subdivision Registration (分筆登記 - Bunpitsu Tōki)

A similar logic applies to land subdivision. If A purchases a portion of a larger parcel of land owned by B, and B is uncooperative in applying for the necessary "subdivision registration" (bunpitsu tōki) to create a separate title for A's portion, A can sue B for an ownership transfer of the specifically identified purchased part. [cite: 15] Upon obtaining a favorable judgment, A can then, again invoking the right of subrogation under Civil Code Article 423, apply for the subdivision registration on B's behalf. Once the land is subdivided and a new registration record is created for the purchased portion, A can use the judgment to unilaterally effectuate the ownership transfer registration to their name. [cite: 15] This was affirmed in a Tokyo District Court judgment on March 22, 1956. [cite: 16] A direct suit to compel B to apply for subdivision is generally deemed unnecessary.

3. Cancellation or Destruction Registrations (抹消登記 - Masshō Tōki / 滅失登記 - Mekkitsu Tōki)

The question of suing to compel a "destruction registration" (mekkitsu tōki) for a building that no longer exists, or a "cancellation registration" (masshō tōki) for an erroneous display registration, presents a more complex picture.

A landmark Supreme Court judgment on July 16, 1970, addressed a situation where the owner of a new building (for which an ownership preservation registration had already been completed) sued the owner of a demolished old building (which previously stood on the same site) to compel them to file a mekkitsu tōki for the demolished structure. The Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiff lacked the necessary legal interest to bring such a suit. [cite: 16] Its reasoning was that a destruction registration, being a type of display registration, falls under the registrar's authority to investigate and make ex officio (under then-Article 25-2 of the RPRA, now Article 28). [cite: 16] The plaintiff could simply notify (申出 - mōshide) the registrar of the building's demolition and request the registrar to initiate their ex officio investigation and subsequent registration. [cite: 16]

However, legal commentary suggests that this 1970 judgment should not be interpreted as a blanket denial of any right to sue concerning the cancellation of display registrations. [cite: 15] The specific circumstances of the case were influential: the plaintiff's new building was already properly registered, and the continued existence of the old building's registration record did not, in that instance, directly impede the plaintiff's property rights. [cite: 15]

Indeed, some lower court decisions have recognized a plaintiff's standing to sue for a destruction registration, especially when there are practical difficulties or disputes that might make reliance on the registrar's ex officio action uncertain or delayed. For instance, a Fukushima District Court judgment on March 11, 1971, affirmed such a suit where there was a dispute over the identity of the demolished building versus a new one, and the registrar might hesitate to act ex officio. [cite: 16]

The "Interference Principle": When Litigation Concerning Display Registrations May Be Allowed

The idea that litigation concerning display registrations can be permissible if an erroneous registration directly interferes with a party's substantive rights gained significant support from a Supreme Court judgment on May 12, 1994.

In this case, a building (Building A) had a base mortgage (根抵当権 - neteitōken) registered on it. Subsequently, an erroneous destruction registration was made for Building A (even though it had not been destroyed), and its registration record was closed. Then, what was essentially the same physical structure was incorrectly given a new title registration and ownership preservation registration as a different building (Building B). This sequence of incorrect display registrations effectively concealed the existence of the mortgage on the public record, thereby impairing the mortgagee's rights.

The Supreme Court held that the mortgagee could indeed sue the owner of "Building B" to compel the cancellation of Building B's title and ownership preservation registrations, and sue the former registered owner of "Building A" to compel the cancellation of the erroneous destruction registration of Building A. [cite: 16, 17] The Court reasoned that these incorrect display registrations constituted an interference (妨害 - bōgai) with the mortgagee's rights, and the lawsuit was a legitimate exercise of the right to demand removal of such interference (妨害排除請求権 - bōgai haijo seikyūken). [cite: 17]

This 1994 judgment is pivotal. It suggests that while one might not typically sue to compel another party to apply for a display registration, a lawsuit to compel the cancellation of an incorrect or fictitious display registration that actively undermines or obstructs one's established property rights can be permissible. The focus shifts from compelling an application to rectifying a wrongful state of the registry that causes tangible harm.

The Registrar's Ex Officio Powers as the Primary Mechanism

It is worth re-emphasizing that for many issues related to display registrations—such as registering the destruction of a building or correcting obvious factual errors—the primary and intended mechanism is the exercise of the registrar's ex officio powers under Article 28 of the RPRA. Any interested party can make a "request" or "notification" (mōshide) to the registrar, providing evidence of the factual change (e.g., demolition of a building, a clear error in the registered structure). The registrar is then expected to investigate and, if the facts are confirmed, make the necessary registration ex officio.

The 1970 Supreme Court case highlighted this as the standard route for a destruction registration. The system is designed, in principle, so that the public record of physical property characteristics can be maintained accurately through the registrar's initiative, prompted if necessary by those with knowledge of the facts.

Distinguishing from Actions Against the Registrar

It is important to distinguish the scenarios discussed above from legal actions taken directly against the registrar. If a registrar refuses to make an ex officio registration despite a valid request and clear evidence, or if a party disagrees with a registration made or corrected by the registrar ex officio, the recourse is not typically a civil suit against another private party. Instead, it would involve administrative complaint procedures (審査請求 - shinsa seikyū) to a higher administrative body within the Legal Affairs Bureau, or potentially administrative litigation (行政訴訟 - gyōsei soshō) challenging the registrar's action or inaction. These are governed by different legal frameworks.

Conclusion: Navigating Display Registration Disputes

In summary, the ability to sue a private party in Japan to directly compel them to apply for a building description registration is generally limited. The legal framework emphasizes the owner's unilateral responsibility to apply for such registrations and, significantly, the registrar's power to make them ex officio.

For situations like new building registrations or subdivisions where an owner is uncooperative, the law provides effective alternative pathways, such as lawsuits for ownership confirmation (which trigger an ex officio title registration by the registrar) or actions through subrogation.

However, when an erroneous or fictitious display registration actively interferes with and impairs the established legal rights of another party (such as a mortgagee), Japanese courts, as evidenced by the 1994 Supreme Court decision, are inclined to permit lawsuits aimed at compelling the cancellation of such offending display registrations. This is based on the principle of removing an interference with rights.

For most routine updates or corrections to the physical description of a building, including registering its destruction, the primary avenue remains a formal request to the registrar to exercise their ex officio investigative and registration powers. While the path of direct litigation to compel a display registration application from another private party is narrow, the Japanese legal system provides various mechanisms to ensure that property rights can be protected and that the property registry, as far as possible, reflects reality, even if it requires prompting the registrar or, in specific circumstances of rights infringement, seeking judicial intervention to correct the record.