物權法制定之焦點

我國應該制定民法通則式的民法典，它是《中華人民共和國民法通則》的擴寫，民法典與民事單行法並存。按照這個思路，建議中止《中華人民共和國民法（草案）》進程，先制定《中華人民共和國物權法》；此後，沒有必要再單獨制定侵權行為法、人格權法、涉外民事關系法律適用法，可以直接按照民法通則體例編纂民法典。在制定物權法中，對於幾個焦點問題提出如下意見：第一，我國是實行生產資料公有制和人民民主專政的社會主義國家，社會主義公共財產神聖不可侵犯，這是我國憲法決定的。因此物權法可規定一些關乎國計民生的財產享有豁免權，不得用於清償債務。第二，時下盛行的法人所有權學說在理論上站不住腳，在實踐中也會導致國有資產流失。筆者主張公司財產結構內外二元論：在內部，股東對公司財產享有所有權，並由其產生的董事會對公司財產經營管理；在外部，公司作為法人以自己的名義從事民事活動，並以公司財產對第三人承擔獨立責任。第三，傳統物權法定主義理論顛倒了理論與實踐的關系，物權的種類總是先由實踐創設，而不是先由法律創設。許多物權，雖然法律沒有規定，它也是物權。即使法定了的物權，也應該允許當事人根據實際需要對物權的內容進行補充約定；如果這種補充約定沒有違反法律強制性規定，則物權內容應當依當事人約定。第四，《物業管理條例》關於業主大會、業主委員會的規定，與《城市居民委員會組織法》關於居民會議、居民委員會的規定存在許多交叉、重复現象，後者是我國基層群眾性自治組織，不容業主大會、業主委員會對它沖擊，房屋所有人有特殊的利益，完全可以在居民委員會內設業主委員會，不必在一個住房小區內另設業主大會、業主委員會，搞“兩套馬車”。第五，傳統物權理論雖然在所有權規定方面較為輝煌，但由於存在大量物權與債權的交叉，產生了 “物權法的困惑”問題。第六，其他三個技術性問題：關於物，應該首先在物權法中明確規定；關於占有，不能單獨成篇；關於法律責任，應該在物權法中刪去原民法物權編草案中的“物權的保護”，專門設立“法律責任”一章。

Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China should adopt the pattern set by General Principles of the Civil Law of the People’s Republic of China and it will be the expansion of the latter. This means that Civil Code will co-exist with specially and individually enacted regulations. Pursuant to this route, China should first draft Real Right Law, but there is no need to draft Torts Law, Personal Rights Law or Conflicting Law afterwards. As to the drafting of Real Right Law, the following opinions are presented: Firstly, the means of production in China is owned by the State and China is a socialist country under the people’s democratic dictatorship, w hich determine that socialist public property is inviolable. Therefore, Real Right Law can prescribe those properties key to the national economy and the people’s livelihood are exempt from discharging liabilities. Secondly, the prevalent legal persons’ property ownership theory has no theoretical grounds and it will also lead to the loss of state owned property. The article holds that the property of the company has a dual structure, according to which interiorly shareholders have ownership over the property of the company and they select board of directors to manage it, and externally the company engages civil activities on its own name and it independently undertakes the liabilities. Thirdly, the principle that real rights can only be prescribed via statutes mistakenly understands the relationship between theory and practice. One specific kind of real right should first go in practice and then it can be set up in the statute. Many kinds of real rights still fall within the scope of real rights even without legislative confirmation. Even for those kinds of real rights that have already been prescribed in statutes, there should be further possibilities for the parties to make complementary agreements about their duties, which will be valid unless they break the forceful regulations. Fourthly, Apartment Management Act has some prescriptions about the apartment owners’ meeting a nd the apartment owners’ committee, which overlap the prescriptions set by City Residents Committee Organizing Act. City Residents’ Committee is a local autonomous mass Organization, and the apartment owners’ committee can not threat its existence. To protect the special rights of the apartment owners, we can set the apartment owners’ committee under the City Residents’ Committee for an independent organization is not necessary. Fifthly, we can find many successful prescriptions about ownership in classic real right theory, while there are still so many overlapping prescriptions with those of the obligations that we are forced to confront “Real Right’s Puzzle”. Sixthly, there are still other technical Problems, such as things should be first prescribed in Real Right Law , possession can not be prescribed in an independent chapter, and liabilities should be delegated to the chapter of “Legal Liabilities” and therefore to prescribe the protections for real right in Real Right Law is no more necessary.