「『原住民族保留地』得否由非原住民取得所有權？」為法與社會近年之重要議題。本文以最高法院110年度台上字第709號民事判決為實例觀察法之續造，導入原住民族紛爭應具之法學方法，以「法規範層級構造理論」論證管制法規範於原住民族保留地，保障原住民族多元文化，且從「特殊完閉之法體系」，原住民族保留地為原住民族文化權之載體──「集體權」為其本質──發揮永續發展之價值。<br>本文亦藉民法第71條，證立山坡地保育利用條例第37條第2項、原住民保留地開發管理辦法第18條第1項為禁止規定之效力規定，就原住民族保留地所有權之實質控制，非原住民違反管制法規範為借名登記契約、買賣契約、所有權移轉登記、設定地上權等債權行為、物權行為，應為無效，以實踐價值法學於裁判之實效，達原住民族法制之合目的性詮釋。

Can non-indigenous individuals acquire ownership of Lands Reserved for Indigenous People? This question has emerged as a crucial issue at the intersection of law and society in recent years. Using Supreme Court Civil Judgment (110) Tai-Shang-Tzu No. 709 as a case study to observe the judicial development of law, this paper introduces the jurisprudential methodology requisite for resolving disputes concerning indigenous people. By applying the“theory of the hierarchical structure of the legal order”, it justifies the application of regulatory norms to Lands Reserved for Indigenous People to safeguard indigenous multiculturalism. Moreover, viewed through the lens of a“special self-contained legal regime,”Lands Reserved for Indigenous People serves as the carrier of indigenous cultural rights—rooted fundamentally in“collective rights”—thereby realizing the value of sustainable development.<br>Additionally, drawing upon Article 71 of the Civil Code, this paper argues that Article 37, Paragraph 2 of the Slopeland Conservation and Utilization Act and Article 18, Paragraph 1 of the Regulations on Development and Management of the Lands Reserved for Indigenous People function as mandatory prohibitive provisions governing validity. Consequently, regarding the substantive control over such ownership, any obligatory and real acts—including borrowed-name registration contracts, sales contracts, registrations of ownership transfer, and the creation of superficies—undertaken by non-indigenous individuals in violation of these regulatory norms must be deemed void. This approach actualizes the efficacy of the jurisprudence of values in judicial adjudication, ultimately achieving a teleological interpretation of the indigenous legal framework.