The cornerstone of Japan's robust real property registration system is the principle of "one property, one registration record" (一不動産一登記記録の原則 - ichi fudōsan ichi tōki kiroku no gensoku). This fundamental tenet aims to ensure clarity, prevent conflicting claims, and facilitate secure real estate transactions. However, despite this ideal, instances of "duplicate registration" (重複登記 - jūfuku tōki)—where two or more separate registration records exist for the same physical building—can occur, particularly due to historical reasons or complex administrative actions. This article explores how the Japanese legal system, primarily through the ex officio (by own authority) powers of the Legal Affairs Bureau registrar (登記官 - tōkikan), addresses and resolves these problematic duplicate building registrations.

The Origins of Duplicate Registrations: A Look Back

Understanding how duplicate registrations arise provides context for the remedies. Historically, several factors contributed to their creation:

• Archaic Record-Keeping: Before modern, systematized registration, record-keeping methods were less centralized and uniform. Older registry books were sometimes organized by registration number rather than by property location, making it harder to detect existing registrations.
• Building Registration Evolution: Initially, there was no comprehensive "house registry" (kaoku daichō). Even after its introduction, house numbers were sometimes assigned independently of land lot numbers, creating potential for confusion.
• Unrecorded Government Actions: In the past, government acquisition of land for roads or other public works was not always meticulously recorded, sometimes leading to discrepancies when properties were later transacted.
• Post-War Land Reforms: The extensive land reforms in post-World War II Japan, aimed at creating more owner-farmers, involved mass registrations and sometimes led to expedited or simplified procedures that could result in overlaps or errors.
• Lost or Recreated Registries: Destruction of registry books due to war, fire, or natural disasters, and their subsequent recreation, sometimes resulted in inaccuracies or duplications if full information was not available.
• Administrative Consolidations: Large-scale mergers of municipalities and changes to administrative divisions (e.g., village names, section names (aza), lot numbers) during the Meiji era (1868-1912) and later periods could also lead to confusion and duplicate entries if existing registrations were not perfectly transcribed or correlated to new identifiers.

The crucial 1960 amendments to the Real Property Registration Act (不動産登記法 - Fudōsan Tōkihō, hereinafter RPRA) established the modern "display registration" (表示に関する登記 - hyōji ni kansuru tōki) system, which focuses on the physical attributes of property. This shifted the legal framework for dealing with duplicates from primarily an issue of conflicting ownership registrations to an issue of conflicting display (or heading-section - 表題部 hyōdaibu) registrations for the same physical asset.

The Registrar's Authority: The Primary Tool for Rectification

Under current Japanese law, particularly Article 28 of the RPRA, the registrar possesses the authority and, indeed, the duty to make corrections to display registrations ex officio if errors or discrepancies are discovered. This power is central to resolving duplicate registration records for buildings. Unlike rights registrations (e.g., ownership transfers, mortgages), which predominantly rely on applications from the involved parties, the integrity of display registrations—which describe the "what and where" of the property—is actively monitored and maintained by the registrar.

When a duplicate registration is identified, meaning two separate hyōdai-bu records appear to describe the same physical building, the registrar must take steps to eliminate one, thereby restoring the "one property, one record" principle. The decision-making process is guided by legal principles and a body of administrative precedents.

Resolving Duplicate Registrations: Key Scenarios and Guiding Precedents

The approach to resolving duplicate registrations typically depends on whether the "heading-section owner" (表題部所有者 - hyōdai-bu shoyūsha – the person identified as the owner in the physical description part of the record, usually the original builder or acquirer) is the same or different in the conflicting records.

Scenario 1: Same Heading-Section Owner in Both Records

If both duplicate registration records initially name the same heading-section owner:

• General Rule: The standard procedure is for the registrar to cancel the later of the two duplicate display registrations ex officio. The rationale is that the first validly established registration record for the building takes precedence.
• The "Convenience" Exception (Showa 39 [1964] Minji-Kō No. 384):
  A significant administrative directive issued on February 21, 1964, introduced a crucial exception based on practical convenience (便宜 - bengi). This applies when:
  • The later of the two duplicate registrations has subsequent valid rights registered upon it (e.g., ownership transfers, mortgages, leases).
  • The earlier duplicate registration, in contrast, only shows the initial heading-section owner (or perhaps an initial ownership preservation registration - 所有権保存登記 shoyūken hozon tōki - but no further transactions or encumbrances).
    In such circumstances, the registrar may, for reasons of practical convenience and to avoid disrupting an established chain of subsequent rights, cancel the earlier registration ex officio. This approach acknowledges that the later record, despite being second in time, has become the foundation for more complex and current legal interests. Preserving it, provided the initial link to the correct owner and building is sound, minimizes disruption to third parties who have relied on that later record.

Scenario 2: Different Heading-Section Owners in the Records

When the duplicate records list different heading-section owners, the situation is more complex:

• General Rule (from Showa 39 [1964] Minji-Kō No. 384): If the heading-section owners are different, the default approach, similar to the general rule above, is for the registrar to cancel the later of the two duplicate display registrations ex officio. This again prioritizes the first-in-time registered claim to the building's physical identity. Any subsequent applications made based on the later (and now cancelled) registration record would typically be rejected.
• The "Substantive Equivalence" or Historical Analysis Exception (Showa 44 [1969] Minji-Kō No. 868):
  A more nuanced exception was outlined in a directive dated April 21, 1969. This case involved duplicate registrations where the currently registered owners were different, and the later registration traced its chain of title to the Ministry of Finance, while the earlier registration showed a different, older chain of title.
  The ruling permitted the ex officio cancellation of the earlier registration. The key was a thorough examination of the entire registration history (経過内容 - keika naiyō) of both records. If this historical analysis revealed that, despite different names appearing at various stages, the two chains of title could effectively be considered as originating from the same substantive root, or if the later registration more clearly and accurately reflected the legitimate progression of ownership and rights, then cancelling the earlier, potentially more problematic or less "active," record was deemed appropriate.
  This "substantive equivalence" approach requires the registrar to look beyond the immediate heading-section owners and delve into the transactional history to determine which record provides a more reliable basis for the current state of title. It allows for a more tailored resolution when simply adhering to the "later-in-time is cancelled" rule would lead to a less accurate or more disruptive outcome.

Partial Duplicate Registrations: A "Surgical" Approach to Correction

Sometimes, a duplicate registration does not affect the entire building but only a specific portion, often arising in the context of condominium (区分建物 - kubun tatemono) registrations.

• The Condominium Overlap Case (Showa 40 [1965] Minji-Kō No. 623):
  This precedent, dated March 23, 1965, dealt with a scenario where:
  1. Specific floors of a building (e.g., 3rd to 6th floors – let's call this "Unit A") were correctly registered as a condominium unit in the name of Owner X.
  2. Subsequently, due to a court-ordered provisional attachment (仮差押 - kari-sashiosae) against a different party (Owner Y), the registrar ex officio created a new display registration for the entire building (e.g., 7 floors – "Building B") as a single, non-condominium entity in the name of Owner Y. This action inadvertently created a duplicate registration for the space occupied by Unit A (floors 3-6).
     The directive for resolving this partial duplication was as follows:
     The later, all-encompassing registration for Building B (in Owner Y's name) was to be modified. The registrar was instructed to effectively "divide" or rectify Building B's registration. The portion of Building B's display registration corresponding to floors 3-6 (the segment overlapping with Owner X's prior, valid condominium unit registration) was to be cancelled ex officio. The display registration for Building B would then be corrected to accurately cover only the non-overlapping parts (e.g., floors 1-2 and floor 7).
     This "surgical" approach ensures that the prior, valid registration (Unit A) is preserved, while the overreach of the subsequent, broader registration (Building B) is corrected to eliminate only the duplicated portion. It avoids the wholesale cancellation of an entire registration if only part of it is problematic.

Guiding Principles for Ex Officio Cancellation of Duplicates

From these precedents and general registration principles, several key themes emerge for the ex officio resolution of duplicate building display registrations:

1. Upholding the "One Property, One Record" Rule: This is the ultimate objective.
2. Registrar's Central Role: The registrar's ex officio power under RPRA Article 28 is the primary mechanism for correction.
3. Priority of Earlier Valid Registration: Generally, the first validly created display registration for a building is given precedence.
4. Exceptions Based on Practicality and Substantive Analysis:
   • Convenience (Bengi): If the same owner is involved and the later record has a more developed and relied-upon chain of subsequent rights, the earlier, less active record may be cancelled.
   • Historical Title Analysis: Even with different owners, a detailed review of the registration history might justify cancelling an earlier record if the later one provides a clearer or more legitimate representation of the title's progression from a common or equivalent root.
5. Rectification of Partial Duplicates: The approach is to precisely eliminate the overlap while preserving valid, non-overlapping portions of existing registrations.

Procedural Aspects and Considerations

While the RPRA grants registrars ex officio power, the process of resolving duplicate registrations is not undertaken lightly:

• Thorough Investigation: Upon discovery or notification of a potential duplicate, the registrar will conduct an investigation to confirm that the two records indeed refer to the identical physical building. This may involve examining plans, historical records, and potentially site inspections.
• Notification to Interested Parties (General Practice): Although ex officio action is authorized, Japanese administrative practice generally favors transparency. Registrars will often notify parties who have registered interests (owners, mortgagees, etc.) on either of the duplicate records before taking action to cancel one. This provides an opportunity for these parties to present any relevant information or arguments, although the final decision rests with the registrar based on the law and guiding precedents.
• Impact on Subsequent Transactions: Once a duplicate registration record is officially cancelled and its registration form (登記用紙 - tōki yōshi) is closed (閉鎖 - heisa), it becomes legally void for future purposes. Any attempt to conduct transactions or register further rights based on the cancelled record would be invalid. All subsequent dealings must proceed based on the single, remaining valid registration record.

Conclusion: Striving for a Singular, Reliable Record

Japan's property registration system, through the diligent work and ex officio authority of its registrars, has established clear, albeit sometimes complex, procedures for untangling and resolving duplicate building registrations. These procedures, refined by decades of administrative practice and specific guiding precedents, aim to balance principles of temporal priority, practical convenience for ongoing transactions, and a substantive analysis of the registration histories. The ultimate goal is to restore and maintain the fundamental principle of "one property, one registration record," thereby ensuring that the public register remains a clear, reliable, and singular source of information for each distinct building, fostering the security and confidence essential for all real estate dealings.