我國不動產登記審查法律問題分析——形式或實質審查主義

我國不動產登記程序因受到公私法交錯作用之影響，使不動產登記機關之審查權限寬嚴出現爭議，除學理上有形式審查或實質審查主義之爭議外，兼以登記機關常因法規、政策或實務之需求而就登記申請個案應行使何種審查權限而感到困惑。為此，本文首先認為我國登記機關基於依法行政，對其所掌管之登記事項，應以「法定（合法性）審查主義」之概念予以涵括，希冀能擺脫學理上仍陷於形式審查與實質審查主義論爭之困境。再者，本文以為職權調查主義實則為登記機關擁有依法為實質審查之法理依據之一，故職權調查手段之運用應屬登記機關實質審查權限之範疇，亦即登記機關須依法規規定程序與要求對不動產登記申請事項之真實性、合法性及有效性，進行調查核實。然而，經由分析得知，登記機關僅透過法規位階甚低之行政規則頒布大量切結書相關規定，以省卻其本應踐行實質審查之義務，此除有違反「法律保留原則」之意旨外，亦不符不動產登記法上相關原則（法定審查原則）之要求，是中央主管機關宜正視之。此外，按「法定審查主義」為我國土地法與土地登記規則所明定者，經由本文分析得知，基於我國主要繼受德國「權利登記制」之故，登記機關須確保登記簿上（權利）記載事項須與實體法律關係一致，其責任不可謂輕。進言之，登記完竣所生「法律效力」應與其「審查義務（密度）」成正比，始為正確。於是，本文乃聚焦於申請型之登記案件上，並將其登記完竣所生之效力予以類型化（屬登記生效、對抗或處分要件者），藉以分析登記機關所應負擔審查義務之密度，並利後續建構國家相關賠償責任之依據。本文經分析亦發現下述幾項重點：一、經登記機關之形式審查結果僅應賦予不動產登記簿登載資料公示力而不及於公信力，此時登記機關應僅承擔善良管理人之注意義務（抽象輕過失），廣泛而言，其應負擔國家責任（密度）較低。二、經登記機關之（法定）審查結果應賦予不動產登記簿登載資料公信力，但尚得細分為：推定無過失責任：登記人員對於申請人所附具相關文件不僅應負擔善良管理人注意義務（抽象輕過失），對於來自於登記機關本身所出具影響物權變動之證明文件（例如申辦土地繼承登記之原土地所有權權狀），亦應負擔更高注意義務（程度），倘若因此而生（例如）虛偽登記、且無法證明受害人有可歸責性者，不論他機關有無具可歸責性，地政機關均應先行對外負擔損害賠償責任。抽象輕過失責任：對於他機關（例如稅捐稽徵機關）所出具影響物權變動之證明文件（例如遺產稅完稅證明書），此時登記人員對之雖仍應負擔善良管理人注意義務（抽象輕過失），惟於審查後倘若該文件係造成受害人權益受損之直接證明文件、且無法證明受害人有可歸責性者，地政機關應與加害機關共同對外負擔連帶損害賠償責任，以減輕地政機關之賠償責任。 The real estate registration procedure was affected by influence of public and private law. It makes registration authorities confused. Because its power of examination besides academic debate whether we should take substantive examination principle or not, it also confused that law, policy and practice’s different need. It’s problem consciousness of this thesis. Firstly, this thesis thinks contents of real estate registration in Taiwan that should be defined as “statutory censorship”. It should be correct due to request of Administration by Law. To ensure that real estate registered document’s authenticity, effectiveness and legality. Secondly, this thesis finds that the authority investigation should be one of foundation, which registration authorities should have the power of substantive examination. So, we disapproves of saying about registration authorities have only the power of formal examination. This thesis defines statutory censorship as a flexible power of examination. Registration authorities will depend on difference between cases. It makes registration authorities might have the power of substantive examination or have only the power of formal examination. The statutory censorship not request registration authorities to pursue absolutely true because judicial authorities also can’t achieve despite they have extensive power. This article thinks the power of examination should operate base on difference in the type of register case. And statutory censorship is according to “Law” should attention substantive law, procedural law and general principles of law how to interpret and apply. The duty of examination whether registration authorities perform or not. This article thinks should be considered that authority investigation and Regulations of the Land Registration. However, registration authorities set a lot of “Directions” to escape obligation to do substantive examination. Besides violating the principle of legal reservation, it also violates the principle of real estate registration. Besides, the “Statutory Censorship” were regulated by Land Act and RGLG, we know that the registration authorities should ensure a unanimous result between the things be recorded by register and real legal relation. Therefore, the legal validity after registration completed and density of examination are shall in direct proportion. So, we focus the register case of application and type as validity of register. It is will be a base to analyze what density of examination should the registration authorities do. And the result will be a base to construct what state liability should the registration authorities bear. In addition, the following viewpoints also shauld be summarized in this article: 1.The results of the examination by the registration authority shall only give the real estate registration publicity force instead of public confidence of registration. At this time, the registration authority shall bear the duty of care of the good administrator. 2.The results of the examination by the registration authority shall be given to public confidence of registration, but it has to be subdivided into: (1)subjective negligence: The registrant shall not only bear the duty of care of the good administrator for the relevant documents attached to the applicant, but also proof of the change in property rights from the registration authority itself should bear higher duty of care. If there is a false registration, And cannot prove that the victim is attributable. Regardless of whether or not the agency is accountable, the register administration should bear the liability for damages. (2)The registrant should bear the duty of care of the good administrator to documentary evidence of changes in property rights issued by other authorities. If the document is a direct supporting document that causes damage to the victim's rights and does not prove that the victim is attributable, the register administration agency shall not be liable for damages and shall be borne by the other agency.