您的瀏覽器不支援JavaScript語法,但是並不影響您獲取本網站的內容
司法院內部與外部景觀圖片動畫
::: | | 大法官 | 案件審理 | 大法官解釋 | 相關法規 | |
 
多條件查詢頁面按鈕

 

:::
 

大法官解釋表頭

(釋字第 107 號 )      友善列印PRINT  
Interpretation
J.Y.
Interpretation
NO.107 
Date 1965/6/16
Issue Is the statute of limitation stipulated in Article 125 of the Civil Code applicable to the real property duly registered with the Land Registration Office?
Holding   The reference to a statute of limitation stipulated in Article 125 of the Civil Code, within which an estate owner may claim the right to repossession, is inapplicable to registered estate owners.
Reasoning   Articles 769 and 770 of the Civil Code are solely concerned with an adverse possessor's application for title to an unregistered estate and have no application to registered estates. It follows that the statute of limitation, after which an adverse possessor may claim title by possession, does not apply to registered estates. In accordance with the foregoing, there is no scope for the application of a statute of limitation in Article 125 of the Civil Code on the registered estate owner's right to repossession. Article 758 of the Civil Code prescribes: "title to real property which has been acquired, encumbered, lost, or altered through the operation of law is ineffective unless it is registered." According to Article 43 of the Land Act, "registration under this Act gives rise to a good title against the world." The allowance to the registered owner of a right of repossession would lead to termination of the right due to lapse of the statute of limitation, making the registration system redundant. It would also lead to the unfair result of the registered owner having to bear all the tax and other burdens in relation to the land, despite losing the right to repossession due to lapse of the statute of limitation. This is because the owner, being on the land registry, must bear all the tax and other land-related burdens under the law, and the possessor cannot claim title by adverse possession upon the expiration of the statute of limitation. This Yuan's Interpretation Yuan-tze No.1833 seeks to clarify the right to repossession of unregistered estate owners. It should be added that, as to a registered estate owner's right to repossession, there is no scope for the application of the Civil Code Article 125 statute of limitation.

Translated by Wei-Feng Huang.
Opinion Chinese only
 

BACK

 
 
::: Home 中文(Chinese) Site Map
 
使用聲明 Copyright©2004 JUSTICES OF THE CONSTITUTIONSL COURT. JUDICIAL YUAN 本網站建議使用解析度為1024*768全彩及Explorer5.5以上瀏覽器     通過A+等級無障礙網頁檢測
多條件查詢頁面連結點 解釋爭點總覽頁面連結點