物權理論本土化的力作_評崔建遠教授_物權__省略_說_以中國物權法的解釋論爲中心.pdf

39物權理論本土化的力作王利明（中國人民大學黨委副書記、副校長、教授、博士生導師、國務院學位委員會法學學科評議組成員兼召集人）物權法是關係到重大國計民生的基本法律，是爲社會主義市場經濟的基本法律制度，也是我國社會主義市場經濟法律體系中的重要組成部分。2007 年物權法頒佈實施，是我國法治建設史上具有里程碑意義的大事。在社會主義法律體系建成之後，擺在我們面前的有兩大重要任務：一是如何使紙面上的法律（law in paper）變爲行動中的法律（law in action）；二是如何最大限度地發揮現有法律的實際效果。就物權法來說，這兩個問題都離不開科學的法律解釋，也就是說，需要將抽象的法律條文轉化爲具體的實踐處理辦法，爲此需要強化物權法的解釋論研究。最近出版的崔建遠教授物權：規範與學說以中國物權法的解釋論爲中心一書，正是以解釋論爲主要研究路徑，構建了我國物權法理論與規則體系。從寫作體例上看，該書屬於對物權法的體系解釋論，但是相較於我國的同類作品，該書的內容則更爲豐富而深入，體現了崔建遠教授對物權法純熟的把握。該書一方面大量借鑒了法律成熟國家的理論與實踐經驗，另一方面又立足於我國國情對拿來之物加以篩選，並創造性地提出了諸多觀點，尤其是對我國物權法理論與實踐中的各個難點問題進行了深入的分析和系統的梳理，解決了多年來困擾我國民法學家以及評崔建遠教授物權：規範與學說以中國物權法的解釋論爲中心（上、下冊）實務工作者的許多疑難問題。筆者以爲，該書至少在如下十個方面展現了崔建遠教授獨到的見解。一、揭示了物權的三層意涵第一個層次，在民法內部，強調物權是物權人支配物的現象，表現爲人與物的關係；第二個層次，從物權人對抗非物權人的角度看，物權是物權人與義務人之間的關係，其積極意義在於設計以及劃分出物權的效力；第三個層次，在法理學、政治學等領域，強調物權意味著人與人之間的關係，從而爲諸如物權具有階級性等結論服務。二、辨析了拉倫茨教授的 三階層權利客體理論，並結合我國的物權規則體系對該理論加以揚棄，提出了觀察和界定物權客體的應然的思維模式及方法崔建遠教授肯定了第一階層權利客體理論適用於我國的土地上的權利群，但是認爲第二階層的權利客體理論與中國民法學的有關理念不符，至於第三階層的權利客體理論則應當加以修正才能適用於我國的實務。三、明確了德國民法關於所有權人佔有人關係的規定及其學說未被中國物權法全盤沿襲的事實從如下三個方面入手展開探討：（1）就侵害物權所產生的損害賠償請求權與物權請求權、債權請求權CHINA LAW 2012/0440问学馆之間的關係而言，認爲我國物權法第 37 條關於侵害物權所生損害賠償的規定，即適用於有權佔有的場合，也適用於無權佔有的場合，在性質上並非物權請求權，而只能是侵權的損害賠償請求權，並且該條並非完全性法條，不能單獨作爲請求權基礎，需要與其他條文一起作爲請求權基礎。而專門針對無權佔有所產生的損害賠償請求權，物權法則於第 242 條、第 244 條作了特別規定，這兩條的規定在性質上也屬於侵權的損害賠償請求權，而非物權請求權的從請求權。（2）就恢復原狀請求權與物權請求權、債權請求權之間的關係而言，認爲 物權法 第 36 條規定的 恢復原狀請求權也屬於侵權的損害賠償請求權，適用債權的訴訟時效制度。（3）就不當得利返還請求權與恢復原狀請求權與物權請求權、債權請求權的關係而言，認爲物權法第 37 條規定的也可以請求承擔其他民事責任的其他民事責任可以解釋爲不當得利返還請求權，也適用訴訟時效制度。四、研討了中國物權法設置的不動產善意取得制度及其特殊性認爲我國登記制度尚不完善，不動產登記名義人與真實物權人不一致的情況不在少數。面對如此情形，受讓人僅僅憑藉自己沒有過失地信賴了不動產登記簿的記載，就取得不動產物權，對真實物權人恐怕過於苛刻，因此有必要對交易相對人再增加些要求，例如，必須是有償的交易行爲且價格合理，不動產已被變更登記或被交易相對人佔有等，才能公平合理地平衡交易相對人和真實物權人之間的利益關係。而這些條件，難以被公信力制度所容納，卻正是善意取得制度的題中應有之義。因此，我國物權法第 106 條第 1 款承認了不動產物權的善意取得的做法值得肯定。而在構成要件的具體解釋上，崔建遠教授認爲從我國民法體系考慮不應該要求轉讓合同有效；判斷善意的時點應該以記載於登記簿時爲準；認爲要求受讓人取得不動產物權應支付合理的價格爲要件的規定，也是值得肯定的。五、分析了停止侵害、排除妨害、消除危險、返還財產應當回歸物權請求權的領域，而不應作爲侵權請求權的一部分，否則不符合民事責任爲債的一般擔保的理論，不符合請求權基礎的思維規律把它們作爲責任方式，體現不出其優先效力的特點，不易說明它們原則上不適用訴訟時效的道理。這一觀點無疑具有新意，雖然與我國現行侵權責任法的規定不完全吻合，但也值得我國法學界進一步加以研究和探討。六、提出了確定建築物區分所有權中共有部分的標準認爲確定外牆、屋頂平台、停車位、地下室等屬於共有部分還是專有部分，抑或單獨所有權的客體，需要綜合考慮以下因素：即它是否或能夠被單獨登記爲一個獨立之物，如果尚未被單獨登記則爲共有部分，反之則爲專有部分或單獨所有權的客體；在界定共有財產時，不得違背建築物區分所有權的本質屬性，例如外牆不具備獨立的物理構造，不具有獨立的經濟價值，所以就並非獨立之物，因而不得被登記爲獨立的不動產，不得獨立交易；必須依據法律、行政法規的強制性規定；在不違反前幾項的前提下，當事人有約定從其約定。這些觀點對建築物區分所有制度的完善，具有很高的參考意義。七、全面而系統地總結了各項用益物權之間的效力衝突及其協調規則包括：土地承包經營權與建設用地使用權、土地承包經營權與礦業權、土地承包經營權與漁業權、土地承包經營權與取水權、土地承包經營權與狩獵權、建設用地使用權與土地承包經營權等。通過這些比較和分析，作者構建了一整套較爲完善的準物權的理論體系，這也是作者長期研究準物權理論的系統梳理和總結。八、準確地把握了典型物權與準物權之間的演進關係從歷史上看，物權的外延處於變化之中，不僅他物權的類型在不同的歷史時期有增有減，而且準物權與典型物權之間的關係也並非一成不變。例如，權利抵押權和權利質權在相當長的歷史時期均被視爲準物權，但是在今天主流學者已經將它們作爲典型物權看待。崔建遠教授將這種現象命名爲第一次準物權向物權的回歸。從我國的立法層面看，物權法在用益物權編規定了探礦權、採礦權、取水權、養殖權、捕撈權，然而理論上對此仍有不同看法，有的學者認爲這些準物權並非物權，崔建遠教授認爲這些準物權是一類具有特殊性質的物權。因爲它們也具有絕對性、41支配力、對抗效力、物權請求權、實行法定主義等典型物權的基本特點，因此仍屬物權範疇，並認爲將之規定在物權法中，是第二次準物權向物權體系的回歸。九、解讀了關於地役權從屬性的強制性規定（1）我國物權法第 164 條規定，需役地的所有權人不得單獨轉讓地役權給他人。崔建遠教授認爲，該條規定的但書文義涵蓋過寬，應當限縮其適用範圍。在地役權系土地所有權人以其土地作爲需役地而設立的情況下，因土地所有權沒有移轉，需役地仍然存在，土地所有權人保留其地役權的約定沒有違反地役權從屬於需役地的性質，故該約定應當有效。（2）基於我國物權法第 164 條的反面解釋，崔建遠教授認爲，需役地的所有權人不得僅將需役地的所有權轉讓給他人，自己保留地役權。但是，該項規則也必須排除土地所有權的適用，宅基地使用權也基本上被排除在外。（3）基於我國物權法第 164 條的反面解釋，崔建遠教授認爲，需役地的所有權人不得將需役地的所有權與地役權分別轉讓給不同的人。需要注意的是，該項規則也必須排除土地所有權的適用，宅基地使用權也基本上被排除在外。十、就人的擔保與物的擔保競存所導致的問題提出了系統性的解決方案崔建遠教授認爲，物權法第 176 條優先適用於擔保法第 28 條以及法釋 200044 號第 38 條。在解釋上，應當針對約定擔保責任的承擔的順序，考慮各種情形而區別對待；有關司法解釋的規定，在人的擔保與物的擔保競存時引入了過失判斷標準，規定了減輕或免除保證責任的事由，具有合理性。而物權法第 176 條的規定應該作目的性限縮，僅適用於共同保證和共同抵押以外的場合。蘇永欽教授曾將法律繼受分爲知其然、知其所以然、本土化這三個階段，包括崔建遠教授的這一力作在內的一系列民法著作的問世，表明我國民法學已經逐步進入第三個階段，對於我國民法理論的本土化將產生重大貢獻。我衷心地期望崔建遠教授能夠在不遠的將來，爲法學界推出更多的力作，推動我國民法學的進一步繁榮和發展。北京：清華大學出版社 2011，486頁，59元，ISBN978-7-302-24081-5(上冊)北京：清華大學出版社 2011，492頁，59元，ISBN978-7-302-25317-4(下冊)CHINA LAW 2012/0492Place of LearningReal right:Norms and Doctrines From the Perspective of the Interpretation Theory of the Real Right Law of the Peoples Republic of China(upper and lower volumes)has entered the 2012 Publication Project of“Three Hundred”Original Books.Real Right Law is the basic law of the socialist market economy with a significant bearing on the national economy and peoples livelihood and also an important part of the legal system of Chinas socialist market economy.Real Right Law of the Peoples Republic of China was promulgated and came into force in 2007,which is a landmark in the history of the rule of law in China.After the completion of the socialist legal system,there are two important tasks:first,how to make“law in paper”becomes“law in action”;second,how to maximize the practical effect of the existing law.As far as Real Right Law is concerned,these two issues are inseparable from the scientific interpretation of the law.In other words,it is necessary to transform abstract legal provisions into concrete practical approach,which requires strengthening the study of the interpretation theory of Real Right Law.Professor Cui Jianyuans recent book Real right:Norms and Doctrines From the Perspective of the Interpretation Theory of the Real Right Law of the Peoples Republic of China takes the interpretation theory as its main approach to construct the theoretical and rule system of the real right law in China.A Masterpiece of the Localization of Real Right Theory:A Review of Professor Cui Jianyuans Real Right:Norms and Doctrines From the Perspective of the Interpretation Theory of the Real Right Law of the Peoples Republic of China(upper and lower volumes)By Wang Liming(deputy party secretary,vice president,professor and PhD supervisor of Renming University of China,member and convener of the Evaluation Team of Law Discipline of the Academic Degrees Committee of the State Council)In terms of the writing style,this book presents a systematic interpretation theory of real right law.Compared with the works of the same kind,the content of the book is richer and more profound,showing the skillful grasp of real right law by Professor Cui Jianyuan.On the one hand,this book draws heavily on the theory and practical experience of the countries with mature legal construction.On the other hand,based on Chinas national condition,it makes an examination and screening of the borrowed theory and practical experience and presents many creative perspectives.It has made an in-depth and systematic analysis of the theory and practice of Real Right Law of the Peoples Republic of China and solved the hard problems that have confused Chinas civil law jurists and practitioners over the years.As I see it,this book has shown the insights of Professor Cui Jianyuan in the following ten aspects.I.It has revealed the three layers of meanings of real rightFirst,inside civil law,it puts an emphasis on the real right holders domination of the res,showing the relationship between human and the res;second,from the perspective of real right holder vs.non-real right holder,it reveals the relationship between real right holder and obligor,which helps to define and classify the effects of real right;third,in the fields of jurisprudence 93and political science,etc.,it stresses that real right implies the relationship between individuals so as to serve the conclusions such as the class nature of real right.II.It has examined Professor Larenzs“three levels of right object theory”,assessed it on the basis of Chinese system of real right rules,and presented the desirable thinking mode and approach of observing and defining real right object.Professor Cui Jianyuan believes that the first level right object theory can be applied to the right group of the land in China,but the second level right object theory is incompatible with the related concepts in Chinas civil law and the third level right object theory should be revised first to be applied to our practice.III.It has clarified the fact that the regulations and doctrines of German civil law about“the relationship between owners and possessors”havent been completely followed by Real Right Law of the Peoples Republic of China.It makes an analysis from the following three aspects:(1)as to the relationship between the claim for damages,the claim for real right and the claim for obligees rights arising from the infringement of real right,it holds that the provisions of Article 37 of Real Right Law of the Peoples Republic of China on damages arising from the infringement of real right are applicable to the occasions of both authorized possession and unauthorized possession.In terms of the nature,it isnt the claim for real right,but the claim for damages.Besides,this article is not a complete provision,so that it cant be the basis of the claim alone but be combined with other provisions.As to the claim for damages arising from unauthorized possession,Article 242 and 244 of Real Right Law make special provisions,which are the claim for damages in nature,rather than the subsidiary claim for real right.(2)As to the relationship between the claim for restitution,the claim for real right and the claim for obligees rights,it holds that the claim for restitution stipulated in Article 36 of Real Right Law also belongs to the claim for damages,so that limitation of action of obligees rights should be applied.(3)As to the relationship between the claim for returning unjustified enrichment,the claim for restitution and the claim for obligees rights,it holds that Article 37 of Real Right Law stipulates“may also claim other civil liabilities”and“other civil liabilities”can be interpreted as the claim for returning unjustified enrichment and limitation of action of obligees rights shall be applied as well.IV.It has explored the system of realty acquisition in good faith in Real Right Law of the Peoples Republic of China and its particularityIt holds that the registration system is China is not perfect yet,so that there are quite a few cases where the realty holder recorded in the register is inconsistent with the real holder of the real right.It might be too harsh for the real holder of real right if the transferee acquires the real right of a realty merely by virtue of his trust in the records of the realty register without negligence.Therefore,its necessary to add more requirements to the parties of the transaction(for example,the transaction must be paid trading behavior with reasonable prices and the realty registration has been altered or the realty has been possessed by the parties to the transaction)so as to reach a fair and reasonable balance of the interest relationship between the parties of the transaction and the real holder of the real right.These requirements are not allowed by credibility system,but by the bona fide acquisition system.Therefore,paragraph 1 of Article 106 of Real Right Law of the Peoples Republic of China makes the right stipulation in affirming the bona fide acquisition of the real right of realties.In terms of the specific interpretation of the constituent elements,Professor Cui Jianyuan holds that judged from the perspective of Chinas civil law system,the transfer contract should not be reckoned effective;the time of good faith should be determined according to the record in a register;and it is reasonable for the provision to require the assignee to pay reasonable prices before acquiring the real right of a realty.V.It has analyzed the return of the claim for real right in the case of stopping infringement,eliminating nuisance,eliminating risks and returning property,which shouldnt be regarded as a part of claim in tort,otherwise,it does not comply with the theory of civil liability for the general security of the debt,or with the thinking rule of the claim basis.To regard them as the liability methods cant reflect their effectiveness priority,and its hard to explain why the limitation of actions is not applicable to them.This view is undoubtedly innovative.Although it is not entirely consistent with the current provisions of the Tort Liability Act in China,it is still worthy of further research and discussion by Chinese jurists.VI.It has presented the criteria of determining the shared part of partitioned ownership of building areas.It holds that to determine whether the external walls,roof terraces,parking spaces and basements,etc.belong to the shared part or proprietary part,or the object of separate ownership,its necessary to consider the following factors:is it or can it be separately registered as an independent res?If it hasnt been separately registered,it is shared part.Otherwise,its proprietary part or the object of separate ownership.In defining the common property,the properties of the partitioned ownership of building areas shall not be breached.For example,since the external wall has no independent physical structure or economic value,it is not an independent res.Therefore,it shall not be registered as an independent realty,nor be involved in independent transaction.The mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations must be abided by.If the above stipulations are not violated,the agreement reached by the parties shall prevail.These ideas are quite significant for they CHINA LAW 2012/0494Place of Learninghave improved partitioned ownership of building areas.VII.It has made a comprehensive and systematic summary of the effectiveness conflict between various usufructuary rights and the coordination rules.It discusses the effectiveness conflict between right to the contracted management of land and right to use construction land,right to the contracted management of land and mining rights,right to the contracted management of land and fishery rights,right to the contracted management of land and water rights,right to the contracted management of land and hunting rights,etc.By the comparison and analysis,the author has constructed a fairly complete set of quasi-real rights theoretical system,which is also the systematic analysis and summary of the authors long-term research of the quasi-real rights theory.VIII.It has made an accurate grasp of the evolution relationship between the typical real rights and the quasi-real rights.From a historical perspective,the denotation of the real rights is changing.In addition to the change of the types of right over the property of another in different historical periods,the relationship between quasi-real rights and the typical real rights are not unchangeable,either.For example,the mortgage of rights and the pledge of rights are considered as quasi-real rights for a long historical period,but todays mainstream scholars treat them as typical real rights.Professor Cui Jianyuan names this phenomenon as the first regression of quasi-real rights to real rights system”.From the perspective of Chinas legislation,the chapter of usufructuary rights in Real Right Law stipulates exploration right,mining rights,water rights,farming rights and fishing rights.However,theoretically there are still different views on it.Some scholars believe that these quasi-real rights are not real rights.Professor Cui Jianyuan believes these quasi-real rights are a special type of real rights.Because they have the basic characteristics of typical re