论文部分内容阅读
《民法总则(草案)》第175条规定未经登记的物权人请求返还财产适用诉讼时效,对返还原物请求权是否适用诉讼时效的问题采纳了部分肯定说。立法理由可能是:借鉴域外立法、回应学界肯定说的建议以及彰显不动产登记的效力。但是肯定说的意见多从提高效率、保护交易安全出发论述,这一理由实不成立,一味地追求效率与秩序而罔顾公平是本末倒置,采纳否定说才能保障公正与平等。除此之外,我国没有取得时效制度,时效期间也较短,肯定说与之也不相适应。若是为了促进物的流转利用,可尝试规定返还原物请求权使用除斥期间,但是在民法典中明确规定返还原物请求权不适用诉讼时效才是最好选择。
Article 175 of the General Provisions of the Civil Law (Draft) stipulates that an unregistered realtor requests a statutory limitation on the return of property and adopts a partial affirmation on the validity of the claim for restitution of the original property. Legislative reasons may be: learn from extraterritorial legislation, respond to the academic affirmative suggestions and demonstrate the effectiveness of real estate registration. However, the affirmative comments are often based on the argument of improving efficiency and protecting the security of transactions. The reason is not true. To blindly pursue efficiency and order without regard to fairness is the result of overthrowing the law. Adopting the principle of negation can only guarantee fairness and equality. In addition, our country has not obtained the system of limitation of limitation and the period of limitation has also been relatively short, and certainly it does not conform to it. If it is to promote the circulation of the use of things, try to provide for the use of the right to return the original use of the period of exclusion, but clearly defined in the Civil Code to return the original claim does not apply the statute of limitations is the best choice.