重要實務
【高雄-帝謙法律事務所/土地重要實務(57)】土地登記規則第107條合憲。
2014.4.24 高雄律師-楊岡儒律師
發文單位：司法院
解釋字號：釋字第671號
解釋日期：民國99年1月29日
解釋爭點：土地登記規則第107條違憲?
資料來源：
司法周刊 第 1477 期 1 版
司法院公報 第 52 卷 6 期 1-18 頁
司法院大法官解釋（二十四）（100年5月版）第 264-288 頁
法令月刊 第 61 卷 4 期 149-150 頁
總統府公報 第 6917 號 17 頁
相關法條：
中華民國憲法 第 15、23 條 ( 36.01.01 )
民法 第 312、819、824-1、825、858、866、867、868、875、875-1、881、899 條 ( 98.12.30 )
土地法 第 37、43 條 ( 95.06.14 )
土地登記規則 第 107 條 ( 90.09.14 )
土地登記規則 第 107 條 ( 98.07.06 )
解釋文：
憲法第十五條關於人民財產權應予保障之規定，旨在確保個人依財產之存續狀態行使其自由使用、收益及處分之權能，不得因他人之法律行為而受侵害。分別共有不動產之應有部分，於設定抵押權後，共有物經分割者，其抵押權不因此而受影響（民法第八百二十五條及第八百六十八條規定參照）。於分割前未先徵得抵押權人同意者，於分割後，自係以原設定抵押權而經分別轉載於各宗土地之應有部分，為抵押權之客體。是強制執行時，係以分割後各宗土地經轉載抵押權之應有部分為其執行標的物。於拍定後，因拍定人取得抵押權客體之應有部分，由拍定人與其他共有人，就該不動產全部回復共有關係，其他共有人回復分割前之應有部分，經轉載之應有部分抵押權因已實行而消滅，從而得以維護其他共有人及抵押權人之權益。準此，中華民國九十年九月十四日修正發布之土地登記規則第一百零七條之規定，符合民法規定之意旨，亦與憲法第十五條保障人民財產權之規定，尚無牴觸。
理由書：
憲法第十五條關於人民財產權應予保障之規定，旨在確保個人依財產之存續狀態行使其自由使用、收益及處分之權能，不得因他人之法律行為而受侵害。共有物之應有部分乃共有人對共有物所有權之比例，性質上與所有權本無不同（本院釋字第四００號、第五六二號解釋參照）。民法第八百十九條第一項規定，各分別共有人得自由處分其應有部分。該條項所謂處分，包括讓與應有部分，或以應有部分為客體設定抵押權（本院釋字第一四一號解釋參照），旨在保障應有部分之財產權。又抵押權亦屬憲法財產權保障之範圍，惟因分別共有人就其應有部分設定抵押權得單獨為之，不須其他分別共有人之同意；故就應有部分設定及實行抵押權之結果，無害於其他共有人之利益者，符合私法自治原則及憲法第十五條保障人民財產權規定之意旨。
分別共有不動產之應有部分，於設定抵押權後，共有物經分割者，其抵押權不因此而受影響（民法第八百二十五條及第八百六十八條規定參照）。九十年九月十四日修正發布之土地登記規則第一百零七條規定：「分別共有土地，部分共有人就應有部分設定抵押權者，於辦理共有物分割登記時，該抵押權按原應有部分轉載於分割後 各宗土地之上。但經先徵得抵押權人同意者，該抵押權僅轉載於原設定人分割後取得之土地上。」（下稱系爭規定）亦即限於分割前已先徵得抵押權人同意之情形， 始以原設定人分割後取得之土地為抵押權之客體。對於分割前未先徵得抵押權人同意之情形，系爭規定抵押權之轉載方式，固可避免應有部分之抵押權人因分割而受 不利益，但系爭規定將該抵押權轉載於分割後各宗土地之上，致使其他分別共有人取得之土地，亦有抵押權負擔，且抵押權人得以轉載於該土地經抵押之應有部分拍 賣取償。然抵押權之客體既為原共有物之應有部分，故於分割前未先徵得抵押權人同意者，於分割後，自係以原設定抵押權而經分別轉載於各宗土地之應有部分，為抵押權之客體。是強制執行時，係以轉載於分割後各宗土地經抵押之應有部分，為其執行標的物。於拍定後，因拍定人取得抵押權客體之應有部分，由拍定人與其他共有人，就該不動產全部回復共有關係，其他共有人回復分割前之應有部分，經轉載之應有部分抵押權因已實行而消滅，從而得以維護其他共有人及抵押權人之權益。準此，系爭規定符合民法規定之意旨，亦與憲法第十五條保障人民財產權之規定，尚無牴觸。
J. Y. Interpretation No. 671
Date：2010.1.29
Issue：Is Article 107 of the Land Registration Regulation unconstitutional?
Holding：
The purpose of Article 15 of the Constitution concerning the protection of people's property right is to ensure the free exercise of usage, benefit, and disposition under the status quo of the given property, and may not be infringed by the legal act of others. For joint ownership (tenancy in common), once the real property is partitioned after the creation of a mortgage, the mortgage right on the individual ownership is not affected (see Articles 825 and 868 of the Civil Code). For those who did not obtain consent from the mortgagee(s) prior to engaging in the partition, the subject matter of the mortgage right shall naturally be the entitlement of the respective parcels of property being conveyed and recorded. Thus the compulsory enforcement is levied against the title of the respective real property being partitioned, conveyed and recorded. After the bidding is completed, given that the winning bidder obtains the title to the mortgaged subject matter, the winning bidder restores the joint ownership of the specific real property with other co-owner(s), who also reinstate the respective entitlement prior to the partition, and the mortgage right on the partition being conveyed and recorded is eliminated by its enforcement, so that the rights and interests of the co-owner(s) and the mortgagee can be maintained. As such, Article 107 of the Land Registration Regulation, as amended and promulgated on September 14th, 2001, is in compliance with the purpose of the Civil Code and does not contravene the stipulation to protect people's property right under Article 15 of the Constitution.
Reasoning：
The purpose of Article 15 of the Constitution concerning the protection of people's property right is to ensure the free exercise of usage, benefit, and disposition under the status quo of the given property, and may not be infringed by the legal act of others. The entitlement of a joint ownership is the proportion of the co-owners’ ownership, by nature not different from fee simple absolute (see J. Y. Interpretation Nos.400 and 562). Article 819, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Code stipulates that each co-owner may freely dispose of his/her entitlement. Disposal, as mentioned in that provision, includes the assignment of entitlement or creating mortgage right on the entitlement (see J. Y. Interpretation No. 141), that aims to protect the property right of the entitlement. Furthermore, mortgage right also falls within the scope of property right protection under the Constitution. However, since each co-owner may individually create mortgage rights on his/her entitlement without the consent of other co-owners, as long as the result of such mortgage creation does not harm other co-owners’ interests, it is in compliance with the principle of autonomy in private law and the meaning and purpose of Article 15 of the Constitution in protecting people's property right.
For entitlement in a joint ownership (tenancy in common), once the real property is partitioned after the creation of a mortgage, the mortgage right on the individual ownership is not affected (see Articles 825 and 868 of the Civil Code). Article 107 of the Land Registration Regulation, as amended and promulgated on September 14th, 2001, stipulates: “For real property of joint ownership (tenancy in common) having some of the joint owners creating mortgages on their respective entitlements, the recordation of the partition of the joint property should duly record that each mortgage is fixed upon each respective parcel of land as conveyed in proportion with its original entitlement. However, in the event the mortgagee has provided prior consent, the mortgage right shall only be conveyed and recorded on the [specific] parcel of land acquired by the mortgagor.” (hereinafter the disputed provision) In other words, to take the specific parcel of land acquired by the mortgagor after the partition as the subject matter of the mortgage is limited to the situation where the mortgagee has provided prior consent before the partition. In the situation that prior consent from the mortgagee was not obtained before the partition, although the method of conveyance and recordation of the mortgage right provided by the disputed provision can prevent the mortgagee(s) on the entitlement(s) from being disadvantaged due to the partition, the disputed provision, however, conveys and records the mortgage right on each parcel of the land after partitions, causing the parcels of land acquired by other co-owners also encumbered with the mortgage, and the mortgagee may foreclose the entitlement portion conveyed on each parcel to satisfy the debt payment. Since the mortgaged subject matter was the entitlement of the original joint ownership, for those who did not obtain consent from the mortgagee(s) prior to engaging in the partition, the subject matter of the mortgage right shall naturally be the entitlement of the respective parcels of property being conveyed and recorded. Thus the compulsory enforcement is levied against the title of the respective real property being partitioned, conveyed and recorded. After the bidding is completed, given that the winning bidder obtains the title to the mortgaged subject matter, the winning bidder restores the joint ownership of the specific real property with other co-owner(s), who also reinstate the respective entitlement prior to the partition, and the mortgage right on the partition being conveyed and recorded is eliminated by its enforcement, so that the rights and interests of the co-owner(s) and the mortgagee can be maintained. As such, the disputed provision is in compliance with the purpose of the Civil Code and does not contravene the stipulation to protect people's property right under Article 15 of the Constitution.
Translated by Amy Huey-Ling Shee
解釋字號：釋字第671號
解釋日期：民國99年1月29日
解釋爭點：土地登記規則第107條違憲?
資料來源：
司法周刊 第 1477 期 1 版
司法院公報 第 52 卷 6 期 1-18 頁
司法院大法官解釋（二十四）（100年5月版）第 264-288 頁
法令月刊 第 61 卷 4 期 149-150 頁
總統府公報 第 6917 號 17 頁
相關法條：
中華民國憲法 第 15、23 條 ( 36.01.01 )
民法 第 312、819、824-1、825、858、866、867、868、875、875-1、881、899 條 ( 98.12.30 )
土地法 第 37、43 條 ( 95.06.14 )
土地登記規則 第 107 條 ( 90.09.14 )
土地登記規則 第 107 條 ( 98.07.06 )
解釋文：
憲法第十五條關於人民財產權應予保障之規定，旨在確保個人依財產之存續狀態行使其自由使用、收益及處分之權能，不得因他人之法律行為而受侵害。分別共有不動產之應有部分，於設定抵押權後，共有物經分割者，其抵押權不因此而受影響（民法第八百二十五條及第八百六十八條規定參照）。於分割前未先徵得抵押權人同意者，於分割後，自係以原設定抵押權而經分別轉載於各宗土地之應有部分，為抵押權之客體。是強制執行時，係以分割後各宗土地經轉載抵押權之應有部分為其執行標的物。於拍定後，因拍定人取得抵押權客體之應有部分，由拍定人與其他共有人，就該不動產全部回復共有關係，其他共有人回復分割前之應有部分，經轉載之應有部分抵押權因已實行而消滅，從而得以維護其他共有人及抵押權人之權益。準此，中華民國九十年九月十四日修正發布之土地登記規則第一百零七條之規定，符合民法規定之意旨，亦與憲法第十五條保障人民財產權之規定，尚無牴觸。
理由書：
憲法第十五條關於人民財產權應予保障之規定，旨在確保個人依財產之存續狀態行使其自由使用、收益及處分之權能，不得因他人之法律行為而受侵害。共有物之應有部分乃共有人對共有物所有權之比例，性質上與所有權本無不同（本院釋字第四００號、第五六二號解釋參照）。民法第八百十九條第一項規定，各分別共有人得自由處分其應有部分。該條項所謂處分，包括讓與應有部分，或以應有部分為客體設定抵押權（本院釋字第一四一號解釋參照），旨在保障應有部分之財產權。又抵押權亦屬憲法財產權保障之範圍，惟因分別共有人就其應有部分設定抵押權得單獨為之，不須其他分別共有人之同意；故就應有部分設定及實行抵押權之結果，無害於其他共有人之利益者，符合私法自治原則及憲法第十五條保障人民財產權規定之意旨。
分別共有不動產之應有部分，於設定抵押權後，共有物經分割者，其抵押權不因此而受影響（民法第八百二十五條及第八百六十八條規定參照）。九十年九月十四日修正發布之土地登記規則第一百零七條規定：「分別共有土地，部分共有人就應有部分設定抵押權者，於辦理共有物分割登記時，該抵押權按原應有部分轉載於分割後 各宗土地之上。但經先徵得抵押權人同意者，該抵押權僅轉載於原設定人分割後取得之土地上。」（下稱系爭規定）亦即限於分割前已先徵得抵押權人同意之情形， 始以原設定人分割後取得之土地為抵押權之客體。對於分割前未先徵得抵押權人同意之情形，系爭規定抵押權之轉載方式，固可避免應有部分之抵押權人因分割而受 不利益，但系爭規定將該抵押權轉載於分割後各宗土地之上，致使其他分別共有人取得之土地，亦有抵押權負擔，且抵押權人得以轉載於該土地經抵押之應有部分拍 賣取償。然抵押權之客體既為原共有物之應有部分，故於分割前未先徵得抵押權人同意者，於分割後，自係以原設定抵押權而經分別轉載於各宗土地之應有部分，為抵押權之客體。是強制執行時，係以轉載於分割後各宗土地經抵押之應有部分，為其執行標的物。於拍定後，因拍定人取得抵押權客體之應有部分，由拍定人與其他共有人，就該不動產全部回復共有關係，其他共有人回復分割前之應有部分，經轉載之應有部分抵押權因已實行而消滅，從而得以維護其他共有人及抵押權人之權益。準此，系爭規定符合民法規定之意旨，亦與憲法第十五條保障人民財產權之規定，尚無牴觸。
J. Y. Interpretation No. 671
Date：2010.1.29
Issue：Is Article 107 of the Land Registration Regulation unconstitutional?
Holding：
The purpose of Article 15 of the Constitution concerning the protection of people's property right is to ensure the free exercise of usage, benefit, and disposition under the status quo of the given property, and may not be infringed by the legal act of others. For joint ownership (tenancy in common), once the real property is partitioned after the creation of a mortgage, the mortgage right on the individual ownership is not affected (see Articles 825 and 868 of the Civil Code). For those who did not obtain consent from the mortgagee(s) prior to engaging in the partition, the subject matter of the mortgage right shall naturally be the entitlement of the respective parcels of property being conveyed and recorded. Thus the compulsory enforcement is levied against the title of the respective real property being partitioned, conveyed and recorded. After the bidding is completed, given that the winning bidder obtains the title to the mortgaged subject matter, the winning bidder restores the joint ownership of the specific real property with other co-owner(s), who also reinstate the respective entitlement prior to the partition, and the mortgage right on the partition being conveyed and recorded is eliminated by its enforcement, so that the rights and interests of the co-owner(s) and the mortgagee can be maintained. As such, Article 107 of the Land Registration Regulation, as amended and promulgated on September 14th, 2001, is in compliance with the purpose of the Civil Code and does not contravene the stipulation to protect people's property right under Article 15 of the Constitution.
Reasoning：
The purpose of Article 15 of the Constitution concerning the protection of people's property right is to ensure the free exercise of usage, benefit, and disposition under the status quo of the given property, and may not be infringed by the legal act of others. The entitlement of a joint ownership is the proportion of the co-owners’ ownership, by nature not different from fee simple absolute (see J. Y. Interpretation Nos.400 and 562). Article 819, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Code stipulates that each co-owner may freely dispose of his/her entitlement. Disposal, as mentioned in that provision, includes the assignment of entitlement or creating mortgage right on the entitlement (see J. Y. Interpretation No. 141), that aims to protect the property right of the entitlement. Furthermore, mortgage right also falls within the scope of property right protection under the Constitution. However, since each co-owner may individually create mortgage rights on his/her entitlement without the consent of other co-owners, as long as the result of such mortgage creation does not harm other co-owners’ interests, it is in compliance with the principle of autonomy in private law and the meaning and purpose of Article 15 of the Constitution in protecting people's property right.
For entitlement in a joint ownership (tenancy in common), once the real property is partitioned after the creation of a mortgage, the mortgage right on the individual ownership is not affected (see Articles 825 and 868 of the Civil Code). Article 107 of the Land Registration Regulation, as amended and promulgated on September 14th, 2001, stipulates: “For real property of joint ownership (tenancy in common) having some of the joint owners creating mortgages on their respective entitlements, the recordation of the partition of the joint property should duly record that each mortgage is fixed upon each respective parcel of land as conveyed in proportion with its original entitlement. However, in the event the mortgagee has provided prior consent, the mortgage right shall only be conveyed and recorded on the [specific] parcel of land acquired by the mortgagor.” (hereinafter the disputed provision) In other words, to take the specific parcel of land acquired by the mortgagor after the partition as the subject matter of the mortgage is limited to the situation where the mortgagee has provided prior consent before the partition. In the situation that prior consent from the mortgagee was not obtained before the partition, although the method of conveyance and recordation of the mortgage right provided by the disputed provision can prevent the mortgagee(s) on the entitlement(s) from being disadvantaged due to the partition, the disputed provision, however, conveys and records the mortgage right on each parcel of the land after partitions, causing the parcels of land acquired by other co-owners also encumbered with the mortgage, and the mortgagee may foreclose the entitlement portion conveyed on each parcel to satisfy the debt payment. Since the mortgaged subject matter was the entitlement of the original joint ownership, for those who did not obtain consent from the mortgagee(s) prior to engaging in the partition, the subject matter of the mortgage right shall naturally be the entitlement of the respective parcels of property being conveyed and recorded. Thus the compulsory enforcement is levied against the title of the respective real property being partitioned, conveyed and recorded. After the bidding is completed, given that the winning bidder obtains the title to the mortgaged subject matter, the winning bidder restores the joint ownership of the specific real property with other co-owner(s), who also reinstate the respective entitlement prior to the partition, and the mortgage right on the partition being conveyed and recorded is eliminated by its enforcement, so that the rights and interests of the co-owner(s) and the mortgagee can be maintained. As such, the disputed provision is in compliance with the purpose of the Civil Code and does not contravene the stipulation to protect people's property right under Article 15 of the Constitution.
Translated by Amy Huey-Ling Shee
今日瀏覽人數：2016 總瀏覽人數：9495784
|
帝謙高雄法律事務所 | 關於高雄律師 | 高雄法律顧問 | 高雄律師服務項目 | 不動產律師 | 高雄律師專欄 | 高雄律師法律諮詢 | 高雄律師最新消息 | 聯絡高雄律師 |
|
電話：(07)558-9090 傳真：(07)558-9010 地址：813 高雄市左營區明華一路350號11樓之2  Copyright © 2013-2015 Deep-Change Law Firm, All Rights Reserved 網頁設計:uuTaiwan |
友情連結 |
帝謙法律事務所是國內專業的律師事務所，我們提供專業的法律諮詢、民事訴訟、刑事訴訟、行政訴訟訴願、保險理賠、撰寫存證信函、律師信函、不動產法律、遺產繼承規劃、常年法律顧問、契約撰擬…及其他法律專案，高雄律師團隊經驗豐富、辦案認真，積極處理並以同理心處理每個客戶所委託的案件。