土地分區使用管制得否阻礙時效取得地上權

Land zoning regulation was not impede the right prescription to superficies

張格明(Ko-Ming Chang)

《財產法暨經濟法》 38期 (2014/06) Pp. 71-100

摘要

憲法第15條規定人民之生存權、工作權及財產權，應予保障，而此等財產權之保障，如必須加以限制時，另參照司法院大法官會議釋字第488號解釋要旨，必須合於憲法第23條所定必要程度，並以法律定之，其由立法機關明確授權行政機關以命令訂定者，須據以發布之命令符合立法意旨且未逾越授權範園時，始為憲法之所詐。土地法第83條規定，縣市政府已經編定某種土地之使用分區管制，有明訂其原有使用期限者，在其期限之前，仍得繼續為原有之從來之使用，則有發生土地編定前已具備取得時效利益者，是否因非都市土地使用類別之編定，而使得原有土地使用目的與編定類別不合，造成該土地之使用突然無法為地上權之客體，無法申請時效取得地上權登記，不無問題。然司法實務上有以行政機關編定分區使用之後，對於具有取得時效利益者，不得依取得時效取得地上權登記，顯然有違法律保留及信賴原則，抵觸憲法保障財產權之意旨，自應修正相關法令，確保人民財產權之保障，以杜爭議。

關鍵字

地上權 ； 取得時效 ； 土地分區 ； 信賴保護 ； 法律保留

並列摘要

Article 15 of the Constitution of the People's right to exist, the right to work and property that must be protected, if they be limited in case, another reference to the Council of Grand Justices of the Judicial Yuan Interpretation No.488 words to explain the gist of the Constitution fifteen of the People's property rights should be protected. Restrictions on property rights of the people must be together in Article 23 of the Constitution stipulated the extent necessary and prescribed by law, which expressly authorized by the legislature to the executive command set are required to release, according to the command line with the legislative intent and did not go beyond when the mandate, only be allowed by the Constitution. The County and city governments according to Land Act Article 83 have been scheduled for some land use zoning, there is an express term of its original use those before its deadline, still have the right for using as original, then the land has occurred scheduled have been made prior to aging stakeholders, whether due to nonurban land use classes scheduled, and makes the original land use purpose and scheduled classes or not, that question can not be made to apply for the registration of land superficies prescription. After having to fix a land zoning by administrative authorities, in which the party have prescription interest, are not allowed to get prescription registration, is clearly contrary to the principle of legal reserves and trust, conflict with the constitutional principle of protecting the property rights of the contingent judicial practice, should be amend the related laws that put an end to the controversy.

並列關鍵字

Superficies ； Prescription ； Land Zoning ； Trust Principles ； Legal Priority Reserved