從以房養老看物權的自由化──再談民法作為自治與管制的工具

Annuity ex Estate and the Lifting of Numerus Clausus Principle in the Law of Property: Civil Law as a Common Base for Free Trade and State Regulation

以房養老的議題本世紀先後在兩岸引起關注，本文有興趣的是，規劃政策回應此一社會需求時，不同的產權制度會有什麼樣的限制或方便。先觀察兩岸在推動此一補強社會福利的房產交易時，面對的社會需求有多大，有無足夠商業的利基；再探討此一理念的落實在法律上有幾種可能的安排，其中最值得注意的是物權，越是高風險的交易越需要穩定性高的物權，因此再次凸顯了物權應該法定還是自由的政策爭議有待抉擇，而所有權以外的物權能否正確定位為一種關係權，實為主要關鍵。臺灣民法形式上雖維持物權法定，但增訂的第八二六條之一，使不動產的共有成為一種開放種類及內容創設的新產權型態，可行不可行，以房養老提供了不錯的試金石。最後，這個議題也提醒我們，同時作為市場交易和國家管制工具的民法，如果不能成其大，只會減少交易者和管制者的選擇。

Annuity ex estate has been thematized at both sides of the strait since the beginning of this century. The basic idea is to have those asset-rich but income-poor aged people live a good late life on their own. Social conditions in general also fit here. Whether such policies would bring out the strength and weakness in different property laws, is the main concern of the article. In order to reduce uncertainties owing to life expectancy legal arrangements have to be made in rem, not just in personam. This leads again to the debate over the numerus clausus principle. So long as the relational nature of the limited property, the same as the obligational rights, could be finally recognized, lifting of the numerus clausus principle is only a matter of time, or a matter of form. Taiwan has, with the new rule§826-1 allowing registration of agreements made among joint owners of a real estate, in effect recognized new kinds of rights in rem to be arranged. Whether new business model of annuity ex estate by way of joint ownership with such agreements would succeed, is worth observing. This issue is also related to the role of civil code in a modern society, relying heavily on autonomy of private initiatives and state regulation at same time. Only those codes, that create more room for autonomy and regulation, should sustain.