從民法所有權到憲法上財產權之保障──初論112年憲判字第20號中之基本法律原則

From the Rights of Ownership in the Civil Code to the Constitutional Protection of Property Rights－General Principles in the Constitutional Judgment No. 20 of 2023

釋字第107號確立未登記不動產之回復請求權適用消滅時效之原則，且認其登記限於依中華民國法律所為之登記。日治時期之私有土地，於「光復」後未於公告期間內申請土地總登記，或有應補正事由而因故未補正者，依土地法第57條規定，於公告期滿後為國有土地之登記。最高法院70年台上字第311號判例結合上述兩項，使得歷來土地所有權人訴請國家塗銷登記者，多因國家之時效抗辯而獲敗訴判決。112年憲判字第20號判決一方面確認此等土地仍屬私有，他方認為容許國家提出時效抗辯係有背於憲法保障財產權之意旨。藉該憲法判決之機，本文分析歷來有關憲法財產權之大法官解釋，得出私法中之基本法律制度或基本法律原則對於財產權之違憲審查具有指導性及框架性之作用，且在此背景下探討土地登記制度在不動產私法秩序中之規範意旨，並在此基礎上進一步質疑最高法院110年度台上大字第1153號裁定關於浮覆地之見解的合憲性。

The Interpretation No. 107 established the principle that the right to claim vindication of unregistered real property is subject to prescription and affirmed that registration is limited to that which is conducted in accordance with the laws of the Republic of China. Private land that was not registered for general land registration within the announcement period after 1945, or that had rectification reasons but was not rectified, is registered as state-owned land after the announcement period in accordance with Article 57 of the Land Act. Supreme Court Precedent No. 311 of 1981 integrated these two principles, resulting in many cases where landowners’actions to cancel state registration were dismissed due to the state’s defense of limitation. Constitutional Court Judgment No. 20 of 2023 affirmed that such lands remain privately owned, holding that allowing the state to assert the limitations defense contravenes the constitutional protection of property rights. This article analyzes past Constitutional Court interpretations regarding property rights, concluding that fundamental legal systems or principles in private law provide a guiding and framework role for the constitutional review of property rights. Within this context, it examines the normative purpose of the land registration system within the private law order of real estate and, based on this foundation, further questions the constitutionality of the Supreme Court’s 2021 ruling No. 1153 regarding resurfaced land.