法定通行權之審理爭議－以特定訴之聲明為起點

法定通行權涉及私人間財產關係，袋地所有權人（原告）得就其紛爭，提起確認之訴，但在訴訟之初，不易確知通行權所在之系爭通行範圍，難以特定訴之聲明。法院審理過程經整點爭理程序，可藉由「行使闡明權」及「寬認原告程序中依據新獲得資料所為之訴之變更、追加」之操作方式，使原告得在斟酌程序及實體利益下，於訴之聲明裡特定系爭通行範圍，周圍地所有權人（被告）進而得針對明確之聲明內容，聚焦為具體之答辯；對於多項「可能之」通行方式、及複數之周圍地所有人間，袋地所有權人於同一程序中為客觀、主觀預備合併，或分次提起數個訴訟，訴訟策略上各有優缺點，其本於原告之程序主體地位，得決定其方針，因此法院於審理通行權訴訟之價值取捨上，「防免突襲性裁判」之考量，更重於「紛爭解決一次性」之考量。

關鍵字

法定通行權；訴之聲明；突襲性裁判；訴之合併；訴訟策略

並列摘要

This article analyzes the nature of the litigation in relation to the legal servitude of passage, elaborates issues involving the demand for judgment for the declaratory relief sought, and examines the pros and cons in different litigation tactics. The Taiwan Civil Code prescribes that a landowner of a landlocked land can commence a lawsuit to seek a necessary passage to reach the public road. In the initial stage, it is not easy for the plaintiff to assert this declaratory relief accurately and completely. The defendant thus can only respond to an ambiguous pleading. Furthermore, there are many different litigation tactics with which the plaintiff may be confused. The point is that the court should adopt a practical method that can effectively clarify the plaintiff ’s demand in order to minimize the inappropriate surprising judgment. While trying to make an effort to deal with these cases, the court can formulate and simplify the issues in the proceedings and ascertain the plaintiff's statement by the adequate elucidation. Through the flexible adoption of the joinder of multiple claims, the plaintiff may therefore clarify the demand for the declaratory relief step by step during the process of the litigation. It is argued that a reasonable inference can only be drawn after all parties have the opportunity to state fully their contentions.