黃信雄

中文摘要

民法第832 條普通地上權為民法上的物權，是以在他人土地上有「建築物」或「其他工作物」為目的而使用其土地，其占有之權源為地上權。但是建築物或其他工作物可設定於何種類型之土地作為占有之權源，民法卻未明文規定。土地使用管制在相關法規另有規定，地上權設定除民法定義規定之外，併應參酌其他相關土地管制規定，才得以建構地上權設定於各別編定土地類型之適法性，以符合土地合法使用目的。

大法官釋字第408 號解釋指摘地上權不得設定於耕地時，多年來已成定見，其合理性在學說上少有深入的討論，影響所及不僅為時效取得制度在耕地上適用，對於現行其他法制亦連帶受有影響，地上權是以建築物或其他工作物而使用他人之土地，合法申請容許使用之農舍或農業設施使用耕地卻不乏其例，「建築物或其他工作物」與「農舍或農業設施」是否用語不同卻實質同一不無疑慮，如經驗證果真如此，則該解釋文則有討論之空間，本文基於學術自由原則試行討論。

民法對於地上權設定規定經過大法官解釋後，在諸多土地類別中唯獨排除耕地之適用，然而併同農業發展條例、建築法、土地使用相關法令及實務觀察，如有邏輯上矛盾或對於現行法秩序產生影響，應有評估調整之必要，使該解釋文所產生之限制合理放寬及對於法秩序影響降低，對於財產權限制應有更合理的解釋，以符合人民對於法律的期待。

A Study on Creation of Superficies onArable Land:Focusing on Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 408

Hsin-Hsiung Huang 

Abstract

General superficies, as defined in Article 832 of the Civil Code,is the right to use the land of another person with the purpose ofconstructing a “building” or “other works” thereon or thereunder.The superficiary possesses the land by virtue of superficies createdtherefrom; however, as for on which types of land can superficies becreated to derive possession, there is no express stipulation in theCivil Code. The land use control measures are additionally stipulatedin other related regulations. Therefore, when creating superficies, it is not only the provisions of the Civil Code that need to be considered, but also other relevant land control regulations to construct a legal framework for creating superficies on various separately regulated types of land, to achieve the legitimate purposes of land use.

The holding of J.Y. Interpretation No. 408 indicates that land considered as arable land is not eligible for superficies. Although thisview has prevailed over the years, the interpretation’s reasonableness is seldom discussed in-depth by the academic community. Its impact not only extends to the system of prescriptive acquisition, but also affects other current legal aspects. Superficies is the right to use another’s land by constructing buildings or other works. However, there are numerous examples of legally permitted uses of a farmhouse or agricultural facilities on arable lands. Whether“buildings or other works” and “farmhouses or agricultural facilities” are different in terminology but essentially the same is questionable. If this assumption is confirmed, it opens up room for further discussion about Interpretation No. 408. This article attempts to engage in this discussion, grounded in the principle of academic freedom.

According to the aforementioned J.Y. Interpretation, arable land is excluded from being applicable to the Civil Code’s provisions on the creation of superficies, among various types of land. However, in conjunction with the Agricultural Development Act, the Building Act, other land-use related regulations and practical observations, any logical contradictions or impacts on the current legal order should be assessed and adjusted as necessary. The restrictions imposed by the Interpretation should be reasonably mitigated, and their impact on the legal order reduced. A more reasonable
deliberation of property rights restrictions should be provided to meet people’s expectations of our legal framework.