The House As A Separate Ownership From The Land

[LivinLOS]

If I wish to put a house on leased land. And wish to own the house outright.

What are the steps I must do, and what are the legal documents that indicate ownership.

I was speaking with a lawyer (on a different topic so this wasnt covered in detail or the point of our talk) and they informed me that the house ownership is defined by multiple factors. They said first you get the building permit in your name, then theres the contract with the builder, then proof of payments to the builder for the work and any materials.

This collective evidence showed you were the commissioner of the structure, you gained approval for the structure, you paid for the structure, hence it is then yours. They also made it clear the tabien baan was not an ownership document but a registration of occupier document.

Is that a correct opinion, and if not what is incorrect about it. Is there a single document or indicator as to who owns a dwelling when its desired to be distinct from the land it sits on.

I will of course speak with a lawyer in detail when I am ready to build, just trying to understand for now.

[InterestedObserver]

Sounds like your lawyer covered it all. There is no single document that indicates who owns the house.

[LivinLOS]

Thats how it seemed.. I just have an odd poster in another part of the forum, insisting this is wrong, but refusing to state why.

[InterestedObserver]

Nothing was said about land rights. I assume you realize that house ownership ceases when the land lease etc. ends.

[LivinLOS]

Erm surely you 'own' the house.. And have every right to remove it from the land.. Or sell it.. Or rent it to the land owner.. Or or or..

In actual fact in my case its usufructed land.. But I was just trying to get over that the house owner would be different from the land owner.

I just am unsure what the guy posting in the Phuket forum is on about. He refuses to explain so it makes it very hard to understand. Just insists the above understanding 'is wrong'..

Edited September 7, 2011 by LivinLOS

[stgrhe]

OP, the document's mentioned by your lawyer are correct, but it is not enough as once the house construction has been completed the land office will have to be informed that there is a different owner to the dwelling(s) than the land.

Hence you need:

1. Correctly registered land lease OR a usufruct OR a superficies;

2. The construction agreement in your name;

3. Receipt as proof that you in fact paid for the house; and

4. The building permit in your name. (Building permit is needed before the roof construction commences)

5. Upon completion report to the land office.

If you are planning to purchase a house that is already built the procedure is a bit more complicated but it is still possible to split ownership of the house from the land.

Edited September 7, 2011 by stgrhe

[thaiwanderer]

Additionally its prudent (for a lessee) to have the lease specify (amongst other things):

the right to build and rebuild on the land;

the nature, size etc of any such buildings;

to declare ownership of any existent buildings;

to specify the lessee retains ownership of such;

that the lessor will provide all necessary co-operation for the lessee to register such ownership; and;

that at the end of the lease the lessee can dismantle and take away (or choose and declare by notice to leave the buildings there without being liable to any costs for removal and for ownership to pass to lessor) (and lessor to co-operate with any de-register).

[kamalabob2]

Some real good answers have been posted in this thread. Not every land office is keen on registering the land lease unless the TAX PAYMENT figure is to their expectations. The usufruct is a very attractive alternative. I have the building permit in my name, building contract in my name, a yellow house book, but I missed the part on going back to the land office. However another document to consider is who is named as the owner on the house insurance policy. That named person who is paid by the insurance in the event of a claim on that house.

[donx]

I have been receiving articles in emails from Ocean Villas Group recently. Someone posted their website in another thread and I decided to register and see what they have to say about Thai real estate. I don't agree with all the information they have been sending, but I did find it interesting that they claim that the only way to have ownership of any buildings on leased land is for a superficies to be registered on the land title deed which stipulates that you are the owner of any building on that land. They didn't discuss usufructs at all so I don't know whether their statement only applies to leased land or not.

Additionally, I have read other posts in this forum claim that only a superficies allows for the ownership of buildings. Their claim is that a usufruct only allows for the use of the land and not the ownership of buildings on the land. Once the usufruct ends (either the time - 30 years - has expired or the holder of the usufruct dies in the case of a lifetime usufruct), then the buildings all become the property of the land owner.

I'd be interested in hearing what others think. I personally don't know what is correct.

[stgrhe]

I have been receiving articles in emails from Ocean Villas Group recently. Someone posted their website in another thread and I decided to register and see what they have to say about Thai real estate. I don't agree with all the information they have been sending, but I did find it interesting that they claim that the only way to have ownership of any buildings on leased land is for a superficies to be registered on the land title deed which stipulates that you are the owner of any building on that land. They didn't discuss usufructs at all so I don't know whether their statement only applies to leased land or not.

Additionally, I have read other posts in this forum claim that only a superficies allows for the ownership of buildings. Their claim is that a usufruct only allows for the use of the land and not the ownership of buildings on the land. Once the usufruct ends (either the time - 30 years - has expired or the holder of the usufruct dies in the case of a lifetime usufruct), then the buildings all become the property of the land owner.

I'd be interested in hearing what others think. I personally don't know what is correct.

This is a misunderstandings on the part of Ocean Villas Group. A superficies is the only law section that clearly permits someone, who is not the land owner, to buld a house on the land where he/she has the superficies right. However, just because this section says it is legal, it doesn't mean it is illegal using e.g. a land lease or a usufruct.

Section1410 in chapter III, book number VI reads:

"The owner of a piece of land may create a right of superficies in favour of another person by giving him the right to own, upon or under the land, buildings, structures or plantations."