1. Legal Nature of Ornaments and the Presumption of Personal Property

According to the established jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation and Article 220/1 of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK), items solely for the personal use of one of the spouses are considered “personal property”. In this scope, ornaments are generally deemed the personal property of the woman and are not included in the liquidation of the property regime.

Nature of Donation: According to the decisions of the Grand General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation and the 2nd Civil Chamber; ornaments worn at weddings, regardless of who placed them on which spouse, unless there is an agreement to the contrary or local custom, are considered donated to the female spouse and acquire the nature of her personal property (YHGK-2017/1040 K, Y. 2. HD-2023/5704 K).

Exclusivity to Personal Use: Jewelry, no matter how high its value, is considered personal property by law as long as it is specific to personal use (Y. Ceza Genel Kurulu-2017/275 ).

Distinction for Female-Specific Items: In some recent decisions (Y. 8. HD-2020/949 ), while “female-specific” ornaments like bracelets are directly considered personal property; it has been stated that jewelry in the nature of investment instruments such as full, half, or quarter gold coins, when it cannot be proven which spouse they belong to, should be considered under the joint ownership of the spouses (TMK m. 222/2).

2. Ornaments in Property Regime Liquidation: Value Increase Share and Contribution Share

Although jewelry and ornaments are not directly subject to the division of assets (claim for participation in residual value), their legal nature changes if they are liquidated and used for the acquisition of an asset such as a house, vehicle, or workplace.

Value Replacing Personal Property: Pursuant to Article 220/4 of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK), the money obtained from the sale of personal property (jewelry) is considered a value replacing personal property. If this amount has been used in the acquisition of an asset, a “claim for value increase share” (TMK art. 227) arises during liquidation (Y. 8. HD-2011/1029 ).

Calculation Method: If it is proven that jewelry was liquidated and contributed to the purchase of real estate or a vehicle, the value of the jewelry on the date of liquidation is proportioned to the acquisition value of the asset. This “contribution rate” is multiplied by the fair market value of the asset on the date of liquidation (decision) to determine the claim of the plaintiff spouse (Y. 8. HD-2014/5677 Source, Y. 8. HD-2015/19788).

Prohibition of Double Recovery: It is not permissible to rule for both the physical return/value of jewelry and a claim for value increase share based on the same jewelry. If it is established that the jewelry was used in the acquisition of an asset, a claim for value increase share should be calculated instead of a request for its return (Y. 8. HD-2015/3147 Y. 8. HD-2014/14664).

3. Rules of Proof and Supreme Court Criteria

In claims related to jewelry, the burden of proof and presumptions are of great importance:

Presumption of Possession: As jewelry, by its nature, can be easily carried and stored, it is generally presumed to be in the woman’s possession (on her person). The woman is obliged to prove that these items were taken from her without her consent or were converted without intent of return (Y. 2. HD-2012/14425, Y. 8. HD-2013/11053).

Means of Proof: The existence of jewelry and its use in property acquisition can be proven with wedding photos, video recordings, witness statements, bank records, or asset declaration forms. However, the Supreme Court does not consider “abstract witness statements” sufficient on their own and seeks concrete and material evidence (Y. 8. HD-2019/3560, Y. 8. HD-2017/12680).

Contrary to the Presumption of Donation: The fact that jewelry was given to the husband does not, as a rule, mean that it was donated; the burden of proving that the jewelry was given without intent of return belongs to the husband (Y. 2. HD-2010/12763).

4. Secondary Sources and Additional Context

According to information obtained from secondary sources;

If the claim that the jewelry was converted and used for property acquisition cannot be proven, courts should ask the parties whether they wish to resort to the oath evidence (Y. 8. HD-2013/19022

Although some court decisions have considered quarter, half, and full gold coins not as “ornaments” but as “investment tools,” and thus not as jewelry, the Supreme Court finds this approach erroneous and emphasizes that all types of gold worn at weddings are, as a rule, personal property donated to the woman (Y. 3. HD-2015/6528 K

If it is established that the jewelry was cashed in and a house was bought, the female spouse, instead of making her jewelry claim a separate lawsuit, should put forward this claim as a “value increase share” within the lawsuit for the liquidation of the matrimonial property regime (Y. 2. HD-2021/9241)

Conclusion

Jewelry, according to the Turkish Civil Code (TMK), is the wife’s personal property and is not directly included in the property division. However, if it is proven with concrete evidence that these items were cashed in and used for the financing of an acquired asset (immovable property, vehicle, etc.), the female spouse gains the right to claim a share of value increase proportional to her contribution. In cases where it cannot be proven, the jewelry is assumed to be in the wife’s possession and is not included in the property division calculation.

Düğünde takılan altınlar boşanmada paylaşılır mı?

Hayır. Yargıtay’ın yerleşik içtihatlarına göre düğünde takılan ziynet eşyaları, kim tarafından takılmış olursa olsun kadına bağışlanmış sayılır ve kadının kişisel malıdır. Bu nedenle doğrudan mal rejimi tasfiyesine (katılma alacağına) konu edilmez.

Ziynet eşyaları bozdurularak ev veya araç alındıysa ne olur?

Ziynetlerin bozdurularak bir taşınmaz, araç veya iş yeri alımında kullanıldığı somut delillerle ispatlanırsa, kadın eş bu katkısı oranında değer artış payı alacağı talep edebilir. Bu durumda ziynetlerin aynen iadesi veya bedeli ayrıca istenemez.

Çeyrek, yarım ve tam altınlar da ziynet sayılır mı?

Evet. Bazı yerel mahkeme kararlarında bu altınlar “yatırım aracı” olarak değerlendirilmiş olsa da, Yargıtay’a göre düğünde takılan her türlü altın ziynet eşyasıdır ve kural olarak kadının kişisel malı kabul edilir.

Ziynetlerin kocaya verildiği iddia edilirse kim ispatlar?

Ziynetlerin iade edilmemek üzere kocaya bağışlandığını iddia eden taraf (çoğunlukla koca) bu durumu ispatlamak zorundadır. Ziynetlerin kocaya verilmiş olması tek başına bağış anlamına gelmez.

Ziynetlerin bozdurulup kullanılmadığı ispatlanamazsa ne olur?

Ziynetlerin mal ediniminde kullanıldığı ispatlanamazsa, ziynetlerin kadının uhdesinde olduğu kabul edilir. Bu durumda mal rejimi tasfiyesinde ziynetler hesaba katılmaz; ayrıca değer artış payı da talep edilemez. Gerekirse mahkeme yemin deliline başvurulup başvurulmayacağını taraflara sorar