對佔有性質及佔有保護目的理論的修正：從事實秩序到權利推定秩序

A Theoretical Amendment to the Theory of the Nature of Possession and the Purpose of Possession Protection--Centering on the Presumption of Possession

我國目前的通說認為，佔有僅屬於事實，而非權利，保護佔有的目的在於維護公共秩序。然而，這一觀點無法說明，單純的佔有事實為何可以引導佔有狀態以及佔有保護的歸屬，在論證佔有保護的緣由時也跳出了傳統的私法框架，所構建的保護體系兼具公法保護範式與私法保護範式中的雙重內容，由此引發了尖銳的矛盾。這在佔有人已被法院明確推定或認定欠缺本權的情形中，得到了最為明顯的體現。為了解決這些問題，需要對佔有理論進行修正。首先，當佔有人被法院明確’’認定’’為有權佔有時，佔有人應當被歸屬佔有狀態以及佔有保護，其佔有當屬權利；而當佔有人被依據佔有事實，’’推定’’為有權佔有時，無論其是否擁有真實的本權，都可以依據推定內容，合法且正當的被歸屬佔有狀態及佔有保護，其佔有應當被視作權利；當佔有人被認定或推定為無權佔有時，其佔有狀態構成對財產歸屬秩序的破壞，只屬於單純的事實。其次，佔有保護的目的應當被限縮為維護推定秩序，保護的對象也應當限於法院推定或認定擁有本權的人。當佔有人被推定或認為為無權佔有時，便不應再受到保護，若其佔有受到第三人的侵犯，那麼應當將佔有保護請求權歸屬於被法院推定或認定擁有本權的人；若其佔有受到被法院推定或認定擁有本權的人的侵犯，那麼後者的行為應當被界定為合法的自力救濟行為，無礙於公共秩序。

The current general theory holds that possession is only a fact and does not give rights. The purpose of protecting possession is to maintain public order. However, this kind of explanation is very rigid, not only can not explain why the simple possession facts can cause the ownership of interests, but also break through the traditional logic of private law when proving the reasons for the protection of possession. The protection of possession has the paradigm of public law and private law, and there are sharp systemic contradictions, which is especially obvious in the case where the protected possessor has been clearly identified as lacking of the right. In order to solve the above problems, it is urgent to revise the nature of possession and the purpose of possession protection. First, when the possessor owns the presumed possession of the right, no matter whether they actually own the right or not, they can obtain the ownership of possession interests and exclusive possession protection according to the presumption. When the possessor lacks the presumed possession of the right, its possession has been recognized as illegal, and it is illegal interest. So such possession belongs to the right. Secondly, the purpose of possession protection should be limited to maintaining the presumption order, and the object of protection is limited to the person presumed to own the right. So, if the possessor owns the presumed possession of the right, the possessor’s possession can no longer be protected. When it is infringed by a third party, the claim arising therefrom shall be attributed to the presumed owner, while when it is infringed by the presumed owner, the latter behavior shall be defined as legal self-help without prejudice to public order.