論民法第1063條第3項子女否認婚生父子關係之除斥期間限制（上）──我國民法與歐陸主要規範之比較觀察

The Child’s Contestation Period of Marital Paternity under the Art. 1063 para. 3 of the Civil Code (1): A Comparative Observation Between the Civil Code of Taiwan and the Main Legislations in Continental Europe

基於婚姻所發生之法律上父子關係如無血緣連繫，而賦予子女否認權時，於比較法歐陸主要規範之立法例中，有令子女否認權受有除斥期間限制者，亦有令其不受除斥期間限制者。我國民法於2007年賦予子女否認權時，第1063條第3項仍令其受有須自知悉無血緣連繫時起兩年內行使之除斥期間限制，而仍於子女之除斥期間經過後排除其否認權。經由令子女否認權受有除斥期間限制，固能於除斥期間經過後，達到法律上父子關係之安定性，並經此保障夫受扶養或生母婚姻與家庭和睦之利益。然此令子女追求血緣真實之人格利益受到限制，並使所有子女之否認權於除斥期間經過後同受排除，而於規範之正當性上有疑慮。蓋個案中可能已不存在著須受保障之情狀，亦可能子女行使否認權並不影響此等利益。由於子女經由否認權除斥期間限制而受排除之人格利益係屬重大，於利益衡量下，仍應於立法政策上優先保障子女之人格利益，令子女之否認權不受除斥期間限制。此外，並應導入經否認權人行使否認權而推翻法律上父子關係時，不影響倘未行使否認權時本應發生之扶養義務的規範，而能於子女不受限制地追求血緣真實之人格利益，與夫受其扶養利益之存續保障間，取得平衡。

While the paternity arising from marriage is without parentage connection, the child is conferred with the right to institute an action of contesting paternity. In the main foreign legislations in continental Europe, the contesting right of the child could be either subject or not subject to the limitation of the contestation period. While the contesting right of the child is introduced in 2007 in the Art. 1063 para. 2 of the Civil Code of Taiwan, the child must exercise his contesting right within 2 years after his discovery of the paternity without parentage connection under Art. 1063 para. 3. Therefore, contesting right of the child is excluded while the period elapses. By imposing the limitation of contestation period on the child, legal stability of paternity could be achieved while the period elapses. Therefore, the interest of husband to be supported by the child could be secured, as well as the maintenance of mother’s marriage and the harmony in the family. However, this excludes contesting right of all the children and further restricts their personal interest to pursue true connection of parentage. Therefore, the legitimacy of such restriction is doubtful in the case the these interests might not actually exist, or the exercising of contesting right from the child might not affect these interests. On the other hand, the personal interest excluded by the limitation of the period is essential for the child. After weighing these interests, the child’s personal interest should be protected first de lege ferenda, i.e. the child should not be subject to the limitation of the contestation period. In additional, a provision to maintain the support obligation while exercising the contesting right should also be introduced. Therefore the interest of the husband to be supported and the personal interest of the child to pursue true connection of parentage can be balanced.