摘要
异议登记是物权法和不动产登记法上的重要制度,是对真正权利人之更正登记请求权的一种临时性保全措施。近代以来,随着各国对交易安全的日益重视,物权变动的公示公信原则得以确立。其在不动产领域的表现就是当真实权利与登记权利不一致时,前者在某些情况下要让位于后者,合理信赖登记而受让财产的人能够获得绝对的保护。为了更好地平衡财产关系动的安全与静的安全,更正登记与异议登记也应运而生。即当出现登记的权利人与真实的权利人不符的情况时,应允许当事人或利害关系人申请更正。但更正登记程序要求较严格,时间较长,在争议一时难以解决或来不及办理更正登记的情况下,还应允许利害关系人对现实登记的权利的正确性提出异议而进行暂时性的登记,此即异议登记。该登记的直接法律效力是对抗现实登记的权利的正确性,中止现实登记的权利人按照登记权利的内容行使权利或阻止第三人依登记的公信力取得不动产物权。应当看到,异议登记的这套旨在保护真实权利人的运行机制虽然有利于权利状态的最终明晰,却也同时为那些有意于借此法律制度侵犯登记名义人合法权益的少数人提供了一条不同于以往任何一种侵权手段的新路,异议侵权这一全新的行为模式就此出现在我们今后的日常生活中了。随着异议登记制度在我国《物权法》中的正式确立,以真实权利人自居的利益相关人或利害关系人利用异议登记侵害登记名义人合法权利的活动,必将成为不动产物权的一大安全隐患。遗憾的是,《物权法》关于异议登记的简单规定甚至无法满足事后补救的操作要求,所以,如何构建和完善异议登记的侵权制度,就成了当前亟需解决的一项前沿理论问题。对此,本文仅从三个方面入手做一些探讨:
第一部分是对异议登记制度进行的基本理论层面上的初步界定,旨在介绍该项制度的历史渊源与现实价值,表明我国《物权法》引入异议登记制度是顺应时代发展潮流的明智之举;但也同时指出,异议登记的正式确立亦将不可避免地为我们带来许多新的问题和挑战,其中,异议侵权就是最为显著的一例。通过对异议登记的运行规则的分析,不难发现,异议侵权的产生,从某种意义上说,是权利的静态安全与维护这种安全的动态手段之间的矛盾难以调和的必然结果:一方面,借助异议登记制度防范现实登记与真实权利状态不符的立法设计确实有其不可替代的积极意义;另一方面,异议登记的有效成立将给登记名义人带来的不利后果却又极大地刺激了一部分非权利人的侵权欲。正因为这一矛盾无法协调,所以,建立健全作为事后救济的异议侵权制度可能要比精心打造异议侵权的预防机制更有价值。
第二部分是对异议侵权的行为模式的系统分类和总体概述。文章归纳了当登记机关、异议申请人分别作为异议侵权的行为主体以及登记人员与异议申请人共同作为异议侵权行为主体这三种最为典型的异议侵权行为种类的表现形式、基本特征及危害程度。其中,特别介绍了异议申请人的侵权行为的特殊性,指出这类行为的关键之处不仅在于其所特有的实施方式,更在其所损害的权利客体除了不动产所有权以外,尚有其它种类的物权形式,而这正是传统理论长期忽略的一个重要问题。
第三部分是针对异议侵权制度的一系列核心问题而展开的分析与讨论。文章从归责原则与构成要件这两个方面横向比较三种不同的侵权行为的本质区别,进而概括总结出它们各自的基础理论,不仅明确回答了登记机关的侵权归责原则究竟为何这个在理论界争论不休的棘手问题,而且还提出了认定各类异议侵权行为的不同方法,为进一步深入探讨异议侵权制度的巩固与完善扫清了法理上的障碍。
第四部分是就如何构建异议侵权中的空白制度,以及怎样完善异议侵权制度中的不足而提出的立法构想与理论构造。在此,文章采取了与第二部分相异的纵向罗列法,详尽论述了各种异议侵权行为的制度构建与机制完善等问题。重点强调了追究登记机关异议侵权的侵权损害赔偿责任对于补偿受害人的实际损失的重要意义,以及保险机制的引入对登记机关承担异议侵权的损害赔偿责任所起到的推动和促进作用;具体分析了异议申请人与登记人员共同侵权时的责任性质和责任分担等问题。
Objection to the registration of real estate and property law is the law on registration of the important system and a temporary protective measure of the genuine rights of the people the right to correct the registration request. In modern times, as countries of the increasing emphasis on the safety of transactions, changes in property rights of publicity credibility principle has been established. In the real estate field is that when the performance of the real rights and the right to register disagreement, which in some cases to make in the latter, reasonable trust property registration and the transferee can obtain an absolute protection. In order to better balance the safety of property and the dynamic relationship between the static security, to correct the registration and also registered objections have emerged. That is, when there is the right of people registered with the real human rights situation inconsistent, or interested parties should be allowed to apply for correction. But corrected the registration process more stringent requirements, a longer time, 1:00 difficult to resolve the dispute there was no time for corrections or registered cases, the stakeholders should be allowed to register on the reality of the correctness of the right to challenge the temporary registration, namely, Objection to the registration. The registration of the direct legal effect is the right to confront the reality of the accuracy of registration, suspension of registration of real rights in accordance with the registration of the content of the right to exercise their rights or prevent the registration of a third person on the credibility of a real estate property rights. It should be noted that this objection to the registration to protect the rights of real people despite the operating mechanism is conducive to the final status of the Rights of clarity, but also for those who are interested in the legal system to register the name of violations of the legitimate rights and interests of a small number of people providing a Unlike the past, any infringement of a means of new roads, new objection to this infringement on this pattern of behavior appear in our daily lives in the future. With the registration system in China's objection to the "property rights" in the formal establishment of a true self-proclaimed human rights of the stakeholders or interested party registration objection against the registration of the name of the legitimate rights of the people, will become a real estate property rights The potential safety problems. Unfortunately, the "property rights" on a simple objection to the registration requirement even after the remedy can not meet the operating requirements, therefore, how to build and perfect the system of objection to the registration of the infringement, has become one of the urgent need to resolve the forefront of theoretical issues. In response, this paper only three ways to do some study:
The first part of the objection to the registration system's basic theory at the level of initial definition, the system aims to introduce the history and reality value, indicates that China's "property rights" objection to the introduction of a registration system to follow the development trend of the times the wise But also pointed out that the objection to the registration will be formally established inevitably brought us many new problems and challenges, including objections infringement is the most notable example. Through the objection to the registration rules of operation, it is not difficult to find, produce infringement dispute, in a sense, is the rights of the static security and safeguarding the security of this dynamic means difficult to reconcile the contradictions between the inevitable result:, With a registration system to prevent real objection to the registration status of the real rights of the legislative design does not have its positive significance can not be replaced; On the other hand, registered objection to the establishment of an effective registration of the name will bring negative consequences it has greatly stimulated The part of non-infringement of the rights of people to. It is precisely because of this contradiction can not be coordinated, so as to establish a sound of relief after the objection carefully than tort system may create infringement dispute prevention mechanism more valuable.
The second and the third parts are infringement dispute against the system and launched a series of core issue of the analysis and discussion. The article first objection to the registration of the violations were classified system, summed up the three most typical object model violations, and one by one of their form of expression, basic characteristics and extent of harm and then, from a liability principles and Elements of both horizontal comparison of these three violations of the fundamental differences between, then a summary of their respective basic theory, not only clear answer to the registration office of infringing the principle of attribution is why this debate in the theoretical circle of thorny issues, but also Proposed that all types of violations objection to the different ways to further infringement of objection to the consolidation and improvement of the system has removed the legal obstacles.
The forth part is on how to build infringement dispute in the gaps in the system and how to improve the system of infringement objection by the lack of legislative ideas and theoretical structure. In this, the article took a different part of the second set of vertical, detailed objections on a variety of violations of the system construction and improves the mechanisms and other issues. Emphasis on the accountability registration office objection infringement of infringement liability for compensation for damage to the victim's actual loss of important significance, as well as the introduction of insurance mechanisms to take objection to the registration authorities infringement damages played by the responsibility of promoting and facilitating the role of specific analysis Objection to the applicant and the registration staff at the common responsibility of infringing nature and shared responsibility, and other issues.
引文
[1]马骏驹、余延满:《民法原论》,法律出版社2005年版,第314页.
[2]根据我国《物权法》第106条的规定,善意取得制度是能够适用于不动产物权的.
[1]《德国民法典》第892条规定:为权利取得人的利益,以法律行为取得土地的物权或土地物权之上的物权的情形。土地登记记载的内容应为正确。但是如果土地登记簿上记载有对抗此项权利的正确性异议抗辩时,或者取得人明知此项权利不正确时除外。第894条规定:土地登记簿内容,关于土地上权利、权利上设定的权利,或第892条第1项对处分权的限制,如与事实不一致,致使权利未记入、未正确记入、登记不存在之负担或限制而受损害时。受损害人得请求涉及的权利人同意,在土地登记簿上为更正。第899条第1款规定:有第894条的情形时,对抗土地登记簿的正确性的异议,可以纳入登记.
[2]马栩生:《登记公信力研究》,人民法院出版社2006年版,第206页。
[1]马栩生:《登记公信力研究》,人民法院出版社2006年版,第214-215页.
[1]马栩生:《登记公信力研究》,人民法院出版社2006年版,第216页。
[2][德]沃尔夫:《物权法》,吴越、李大雪译,法律出版社2004年版,第254页。
[3][德]鲍尔,施蒂尔纳:《德国物权法》,张双根译,法律出版社 2004年版,第369页。
[4]孙宪忠:《中国物权法总论》,法律出版社 2004年版,第240页。
[1]常鹏翱:《物权程序的构建与效应:不动产物权登记法律制度研究》,中国社会科学院博士学位论文,第175页.
[1]李鸿毅:《土地法论》,翰林出版社1993年版,第364页。
[1]马栩生:《登记公信力研究》,人民法院出版社2006年版,第236页。
[1]盂勤国:《物权二元结构论--中国物权制度的理论重构》,人民法院出版社2002年版,第197页。
[2]孟勤国:《物权二元结构论--中国物权制度的理论重构》,人民法院出版社2004年版,第37-38页。
[1]同上。
[2]参见《合同法》第229条的规定。
[1]马骏驹、余延满:《民法原论》,法律出版社2005年版,第1025页。
[1]粱慧星教授主持起草的《中国物权法草案建议稿》和孟勤国教授主持起草的《中国物权法草案学者建议稿》均采这种观点。
[2]王利明教授主持起草的《中国民法典学者建议稿及立法理由(物权编)》采取此种观点.
[3]应当指出的是,由于过错推定原则仍然是以承认过错的存在为其归责的基础,所以它在本质上依旧属于过错责任原则的范畴,只不过在举证责任的分配上实行了所谓的倒置主义而已,因此,很多书上将其作为一种与过错原则和无过错原则并列的单独归责类型的做法无疑是值得商榷的。
[4]张新宝:《中国侵权行为法》,中国社会科学院出版社1998年版,第288-291页.
[1]马栩生:《登记公信力研究》,人民法院出版社2006年版,第200页。
[2]马骏驹、余延满:《民法原论》,法律出版社2005年版,第1004页。
[1]马骏驹、余延满:《民法原论》,法律出版社2005年版,第1009页。
[1]马骏驹、余延满:《民法原论》,法律出版社2005年版。第1026页。
[2]王利明:《侵权行为法研究》(上),中国人民大学出版社2004年版,第693-696页。
[3]马骏驹、余延满:《民法原论》,法律出版社2005年版,第1027页。
[4]刘士国:《现代侵权损害赔偿研究》.法律出版社1998年版,第85页。
[5]张新宝:《中国侵权行为法》,中国社会科学出版社1998年版,第167-168页。
[6][德]克雷斯蒂安·冯·巴尔:《欧洲比较侵权行为法》(上),张新宝译,法律出版社2001年版,第402页。
[1]黄立:《民法债编总论》,中国政法大学出版社2002年版,第289页。
[2]于敏:《日本侵权行为法》,法律出版社1998年版,第272页。
[3]郑玉波:《民法债编总论》,中国政法大学出版社2002年版,第143页。
[4]马骏驹、余延满:《民法原论》,法律出版社2005年版,第1029页。
[1]《物权法》第37条规定:侵害物权,造成权利人损害的,权利人可以请求损害赔偿,也可以请求承担其他民事责任.
[2]马骏驹、余延满:《民法原论》,法律出版社2005年版,第1046页。
[1]孙宪忠:《德国当代物权法》,法律出版社1997年版,第30页。
[2]孟勤国:《物权二元结构论--中国物权制度的理论重构》,人民法院出版社2002年版,第200页。
[3]同上,第201页。
[1]王泽鉴:《民法学说与判例研究》(一),中国政法大学出版社1998年版,第66-68页。
[1]马栩生:《登记公信力研究》,人民法院出版社2006年版,第200页。
[2]参见《德国民法典》第839条的规定.
[3]参见《法国民法典》第1214条第2项、《德国民法典》第426条第1项、《瑞士债务法》第148条、《日本民法典》第444条以及我国台湾地区“民法”第282条第1项.
[1]孟勤国.物权二元结构论--中国物权制度的理论重构[M].北京:人民法院出版社,2004.
[2]马骏驹,余延满.民法原论[M].北京:法律出版社,2005.
[3]马栩生.登记公信力研究[M].北京:人民法院出版社,2006.
[4][德]沃尔夫.物权法[M].吴越,李大雪译.北京:法律出版社,2004.
[5][德]鲍尔,施蒂尔纳.德国物权法[M].张双根译.北京:法律出版社,2004.
[6]孙宪忠.中国物权法总论[M].北京:法律出版社,2004.
[7]李鸿毅.土地法论[M].台北:翰林出版社,1993.
[8]王利明.中国民法典学者建议稿及立法理由(物权编)[M].北京:法律出版社,2005.
[9]王利明.中国民法典学者建议稿及立法理由(侵权行为法编)[M].北京:法律出版社,2005.
[10]梁慧星.中国民法典草案建议稿附理由(物权编)[M].北京:法律出版社,2004.
[11]张新宝.中国侵权行为法[M].北京:中国社会科学院出版社,1998.
[12]孙宪忠.德国当代物权法[M].北京:法律出版社,1997.
[13]王利明.侵权行为法研究[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2004.
[14]刘士国.现代侵权损害赔偿研究[M].北京:法律出版社,1998.
[15][德]冯·巴尔.欧洲比较侵权行为法[M].张新宝译.北京:法律出版社,2001.
[16]黄立.民法债编总论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[17]于敏.日本侵权行为法[M].北京:法律出版社,1998.
[18]郑玉波.民法债编总论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[19]王泽鉴.民法学说与判例研究(一)[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1998.
[20]史尚宽.物权法论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2000.
[21]陈华彬.外国物权法[M].北京:法律出版社,2004.
[22]罗结珍.法国民法典[M].北京:法律出版社,2004.
[23]陈卫佐.德国民法典[M].北京:法律出版社,2004.
[24][德]施瓦布.民法导论[M].郑冲译.北京:法律出版社,2006.
[25]孙宪忠.论物权法[M].北京:法律出版社,2001.
[26]徐国栋主编.绿色民法典草案[C].北京:中国社会科学文献出版社,2003.
[27]王利明.物权法论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003.
[28]王利明.我国民法典重大疑难问题之研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2006.
[29][日]田山辉明.物权法[M].陆庆胜译.北京:法律出版社,2001.
[1]孟勤国.中国物权法草案建议稿[J].法学评论,2002.(5):85-98.
[2]马栩生.登记公信力:基础透视与制度构建[J].法商研究,2006.(4):103-109.
[3]申卫星.我国物权立法中论争焦点问题探讨[J].法学杂志,2006.(4):5-23.
[4]张民安.侵权法在我国未来民法典中的地位[J].法学评论,2006.(2):92-98.
[5]中国民法典立法研究课题组.中国民法典侵权行为编草案建议稿[J].法学研究,2002.(2):135-147.
[6]张新宝.侵权行为法的一般条款[J].法学研究,2001.(4):42-54.
[7]王利明.论侵权行为法的独立成编[J].现代法学,2003.(4):3-16.
[8]欧洲侵权法专家小组.欧洲侵权法基本原则[J].环球法律评论,2006.(5):620-625.
[9]刘保玉.异议登记与财产保全关系的处理模式及其选择[J].法商研究,2007,(5):85-90.
[10]常鹏翱.异议登记的制度建构--法律移植的微观分析[J].中国法学,2006,(6):44-55.
[11]孟勤国.物权二元理论与传统物权理论的重大分歧[J].山东警察学院学报,2005,(6):66-72.
[12]孟勤国.中国物权法理论研讨会观点综述[J].中国社会科学院研究生院学报,2004,(5):50-56.
[13]冯桂,蒙晓阳,张海龙.中国物权法理论研讨会会议综述[J].法学评论,2004,(5):153-158.
[14]程啸,尹飞.论物权法中占有的权利推定规则[J].法律科学,2006,(6):105-112.
[1]Allen Ferrell.Why Continental European Takeover Law Matters[DB/OL].[2003-12-18].http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/corporate_governance/p apers/No454.04.Ferrell.pdf.
[2]John Armour,David A.Skeel.Who Writes the Rules for Hostile Takeovers,and Why? The Peculiar Divergence of US and UK Takeover Regulation[DB/OL].Georgetown Law Journal,2006[2007-01-15].http://ssrn.com/abstract=928928.
[3]Michael L.Wachter.Takeover Defense When Financial Markets Are(Only)Relatively Efficient[DB/OL].University of Pennsylvania Law Review,2002[2002-07-26].http://ssrn.com/abstract=330620.
[4]Paul H.Edelman,Randall S.Thomas.The Value of Voting in Hostile Takeovers:An Experimental Model[DB/OL].Vanderbilt Law and Economics Research,No.02-11[2002-09-11].http://ssrn.com/abstract=336200.
[5]Augusto Schianchi,Andrea Mantovi.A Theory of Hostile Takeovers[DB/OL].[2006-05-13].http://ssrn.com/abstract=901956.
