德國土地登記與審查制度之法制分析--兼論我國土地登記審查問題

Tunghai University Institutional Repository > 法律學院 > 法律學系所 > 校內出版品(東海大學法學研究) > Item 310901/24233

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://140.128.103.80:8080/handle/310901/24233

Title:	德國土地登記與審查制度之法制分析--兼論我國土地登記審查問題
Other Titles:	The Legal Institution Analysis of the Land Register and examination System in Germany-the related issues in Taiwan
Authors:	陳明燦 Chen, Ming-Tsann
Contributors:	東海大學法律學系
Keywords:	土地登記、登記原則、登記效力、審查制度，法制分析 Land Register, Principle of Land Register, Effect ofLand Register, Examination System, Legal Institution Analysis
Date:	2012-04-01
Issue Date:	2014-02-24T01:34:14Z (UTC)
Publisher:	台中市：東海大學
Abstract:	我國現行土地登記係兼採德國之「權利登記制」以及澳洲「托崙斯登記制」，其中，特色之一即為登記人員對登記申請案件須採「實質審查」，而所謂「實質審查」係指登記人員須審查：1.申請書所載事項是否與證明文件或登記簿相同；2.證明文件是否真實；3.權利有無爭執；以及4.登記申請案有無違反強制或禁止規定等事項，於審查無誤後始得登載於土地登記簿綜上論述，即以「時效取得地上權登記」申請案件之審查「密度」為例，最高行政法院早於民國95 年9 月庭長法官聯繫會議之決議上即認為：申請時效取得地上權登記者應檢附「以行使地上權之主觀意思而占有」之相關證明文件，亦即對其主觀占有之意思表示須負擔舉證責任，否則地政機關即依法予以駁回。對此，於民國99年所修訂土地登記規則第118 條即遵此旨。然而，是否只要有涉及「私權爭執」之虞者，登記機關即予以駁回而絲毫不予審查？果爾，其是否與上文實質審查意旨有所相違？凡此相關議題本文經上由德國登記制度之分析後，歸納提出下述四點建議以供我國主管機關參考：一、充分利用土地登記程序法上之「替代事項」法則；二、土地登記人員運用「形式證據法則」以為登記程序上之審查；三、運用公證人之專業以確保土地登記簿記載事項與實體法律關係一致之正確性；以及四、確定登記合意原則重於登記合法原則。 The current land registration in Taiwan adopted both the Germany “Right Registration System” and Australia “Torrens Registration System”. One of the features in the land registration is: the registration officer must be “substantive examine (review)” on the application case. “Substantive examine (review)” means that the registration officer must take the following measurements: 1.the matter contained in the application are the same with the certificate documents/ register; 2.certificate documents are true; 3.rights of land are not dispute; and 4. the registration case violates the injunction/ prohibition or not, and so on. Then Published in the land register only after reviewing is correct. Therefore, this article gave an example on the apply review conditions of “Prescriptive Superficies Right”, the resolution of The Supreme Administrative Court Judges joint conference in September, 2006 considered that: land registration apply of Prescriptive Superficies Right, it need to attached related documents about “possessed based on the meaning of exercise the superficies right”. In other words, the Applicant needs to bear the burden of proof in the meaning of exercise the superficies right. Otherwise, the land office could reject the application according to the law. The section 118 of Land Registration Rules amendments also complied with the aims. Nevertheless, is it correct that the Registration authority rejects the case and do not examine as long as the case involving “private rights dispute”? If so, it will be contrary to the intention of the “substantive review”. Therefore, this article tries to analyze the German land-registration system, and summarized the following four suggestions for the competent authorities: 1. use the “alternative matters” rule of the relevant principles of land registration law; 2. Land registration staff keep in the relevant provisions of the Civil Law and the Land Registration law; 3. Use notary profession and auxiliary measures to ensure the correctness that matters of land registration records consistent with the physical legal relationship. 4. To determine principle of registration consensus more important than the principle of legally registered.
Relation:	法學研究第36期, p73-113
Appears in Collections:	[法律學系所] 校內出版品(東海大學法學研究)

Files in This Item:

File	Size	Format
36-2.pdf	676Kb	Adobe PDF	3433	View/Open

Loading...