論所有權與時效制度的關係

On the Relationship between the Ownership and the Prescriptions

取得時效和訴訟時效都可以調整佔有和所有的分離。取得時效將佔有直接轉化為所有，訴訟時效通過限制返還原物請求權，間接影響所有和佔有的分離。對於返還原物請求權應受訴訟時效限制的肯定說，其價值正當性仍存在澄清的必要。在立法技術層次，由於訴訟時效不能解決時效屆滿後物權利益的歸屬問題，訴訟時效不適合調整佔有和所有的分離。“搭橋模式”將取得時效的法律效果嫁接在訴訟時效的構成要件上，可彌補單純訴訟時效進路的不足。“搭橋模式”或傳統的取得時效模式都可減少或消除所有和佔有的分離、徹底解決時效屆滿後物權利益的再分配問題。至於最終選擇何者，則取決於立法者的偏好。“搭橋模式”重點規制原所有權人的不作為，取得時效模式側重考察佔有質量。“搭橋模式”可以在一定期間內完全消除所有和佔有的分離。傳統的取得時效，尤其是時間段善意取得時效，其目標不在於完全消除而在於部分地減少佔有和所有的分離。

The separation between the possession and the ownership can be regulated both by the acquisition prescription and by the limitation periods. The possession can be promoted to the ownership by the acquisition prescription. By limiting the action of vindication through limitation periods, the later can regulate the separation between the possession and the ownership indirectly. Further clarification is necessary for the justification of limitation periods on the action of vindication. The limitation period on the action of vindication cannot allocate the real interests between related participants after the completion of limitation periods. Therefore, the limitation period isn't suitable to limit the ownership from the time level. Both the traditional acquisitive prescription and the bridge model are based on the benefit balancing mechanism of limitation periods. It depends on the legislator's preference to select. The bridge model focuses on the omission of the owner, the model of acquisitive prescription on the quality of the possession. The former can completely eliminate the separation of ownership and possession within a certain period. The goal of the latter, especially the good faith acquisitive prescription, is only to reduce them.