以生父認領推翻婚生推定：比較法上的觀察

Rebuttal of Paternity Presumption through the Recognition by Biological Father: A Comparative Law Observation

基於婚生推定之規範而發生之法律上父子關係如不具血緣連繫時，除透過婚生否認之訴來加以推翻外，自1970年代中期起，比較法上並陸續發展出亦得透過認領來推翻的機制。此一機制結合認領與否認之訴的功能，經由真正生父與同意權人間合意的當事人意思自主，而賦予真正生父推翻既存父子關係之權利，且無須向法院起訴。此即可能造成推翻具真實血緣連繫之父子關係的結果，而須再加諸經由行政機關就血緣連繫進行審查與同意認領的要件。經此，相關當事人於此等認領機制下所需付出的時間、心力與金錢，即與於否認之訴機制下無甚差別，分別規範的實益即屬有限，毋寧仍統一置於否認之訴的機制下。
真正生父基於真實血緣連繫，本有推翻既存無血緣連繫之父子關係的人格上利益與需求。故於我國民法第1063條第2項婚生否認之訴規範中，立法政策上亦須賦予真正生父否認權。惟為確保母之夫與子女的存續保障利益，規範上須就真正生父否認權之發生或行使加諸限制。相較於硬性標準，毋寧以彈性標準作為賦予其否認權之要件，諸如推翻父子關係須不影響子女利益或符合子女利益，而能於適用上更具彈性。此外，亦得兼採於取得夫與子女之同意時，構成賦予真正生父否認權之事由，而能顧及夫與子女的意思。

The presumed marital paternity can be rebutted through action of contestation, if the said paternity does not conform with parentage. The mechanism of rebuttal through recognition in main legislations has been in development since the mid-1970s. This mechanism combines the function of recognition and action of contestation. Therefore, the biological father is conferred the right to rebut existing paternity through the autonomous agreement between biological father and consent holders. All procedures of litigation in the courthouse are not required under the said mechanism. However, exercise of this rebutting right might result in the rebuttal of paternity which conforms with parentage. To avoid this, it is necessary to introduce procedures to examine the parentage by administrative authorities. As such, there is hardly any difference between rebuttal through recognition carrying in administrative authorities and through action of contestation carrying in the courthouse when it comes to the time consumed and financial expenditure caused. In conclusion, the advantages of having these two co-existing regulations are limited. The integration of this rebutting right into the existing mechanism of the action of contestation is required.
Biological father has legitimate interests to rebut existing paternity which does not conform with parentage. Therefore, biological father should de lege ferenda be conferred the contesting right under the action of contestation of Article 1063 paragraph 2 of the Civil Code of Taiwan. In the meanwhile, the exercise of the contesting right by the biological father should also be restricted to ensure the protection of sustained interests of the mother’s husband and the child. Also, it would be more flexible to adopt restrictions such as requiring the rebuttal of paternity not to influence or even conform the interests of the child, rather than to adopt rigid criteria on restriction. In addition, it is also viable to confer contesting right to the biological father while the husband and the child both agree, so that the will of the husband and child is taken into consideration.