（民商法学专业论文）登记公信力的制度解读与制度选择.pdf

1 内容提内容提要要 登记公信力作为物权法上的传统制度， 对不动产物权交易中的安全保 护与风险防范有着积极的意义， 历经历史的洗礼与实践的检验， 其已经为 大陆法系各国学说和立法所承认。我国物权法确立了债权形式主义的 物权变动模式， 并初步建立了不动产登记制度， 却并未言及登记公信力这 一重要制度，在笔者看来，实为重大缺憾。本文综合运用比较分析的研究 方法、法律价值分析的研究方法、历史分析的研究方法、法律解释的研究 方法， 对登记公信力的理性内涵展开了系统化的梳理与探讨， 构建起科学 的理论图景， 以阐明登记公信力特定的制度功能与物权变动的制度体系之 间所存在的连接与互动关系， 并最终回答登记公信力能否为我国立法所采 纳这一重大现实问题， 以期能为我国未来登记公信力的制度化提供可能的 选择方案。 本文共分为五个部分： 第一部分全面剖析了登记公信力的制度内涵，法律价值和法律构建。 首先界定登记公信力的基本内涵， 乃为登记错误发生之时， 第三人不知该 登记错误存在而与登记名义人为交易， 该第三人可基于其对登记的善意信 赖而确定的取得该登记之不动产物权，真实权利人不得要求该第三人返 还。 从法律价值的角度分析， 登记公信力的首要价值在于交易安全的保护， 在效率价值层面，登记公信力又可节约交易成本，降低交易风险，还可为 交易提供有效的激励机制。 在法律构建上， 登记公信力必须具备明确的构 成要件，方可将其安全和效率的法律价值予以最大发挥。同时，登记公信 力的基本法律价值， 又必然导出其法律效果， 即第三人确定取得登记的不 动产物权，真实权利人因此丧失该不动产物权。 第二部分从物权变动与物权公示的角度， 在学说与立法例的比较考察 基础之上，简要介绍了物权变动的三种不同模式，即意思主义模式，物权 形式主义和债权形式主义， 随后即对物权变动模式与登记公信力的关系展 开追问。 意思主义模式以法国法为典型， 要求物权的变动以当事人债权契 约的达成为生效要件， 物权变动是债权契约的直接法律效果， 而物权公示 只作为物权变动的对抗要件。 物权形式主义则要求物权变动于当事人的债 权契约之外， 还必须具备独立的物权契约， 并辅之以交付或登记的公示手 段。 德国民法典以“物权行为理论”为基础构建起物权形式主义的物 2 权变动模式。债权形式主义模式不承认物权形式主义中的独立物权契约， 物权变动是债权契约与交付或登记相结合的法律效果，我国物权法即 采债权形式主义模式。 意思主义模式虽有利于交易便捷， 但逻辑上缺陷明 显，导致法律适用上的曲折复杂，矛盾重重。相反，物权形式主义和债权 形式主义理论逻辑连贯一致， 适用中法律关系清晰明了， 有利于交易安全 的保护， 较之债权意思主义模式具有更大的制度优势。 在登记公信力与物 权变动模式关系上， 登记公信力不与特定物权变动模式发生绝对的必然性 关联，但形式主义与登记公信力的制度结合，却更具有合理性。 第三部分以体系化为视角， 探讨了登记公信力与相关制度的体系协调 与功能替代关系。 第一， 登记公信力与物权行为理论存在着一定功能上的 重合， 本文通过考察物权行为理论的基本内涵， 并在制度功能上对登记公 信力和物权行为理论作出优劣比较， 认为物权行为理论的固有缺陷使其不 能完满的为交易安全提供应有的保护，而登记公信力可直接“治愈”交易 中的处分权瑕疵，对第三人的保护更为有力。同时，登记公信力在真正权 利人与第三人间的利益衡量上，更富有弹性，因此，在交易安全保护上， 应以登记公信力替代物权行为理论。 第二， 登记公信力与不动产善意取得 同样存在制度替代的问题。 本文首先澄清了对不动产善意取得的误读， 揭 示出不动产善意取得与登记公信力的实质差异， 乃在于不动产善意取得中 第三人善意信赖的权利表征为不动产占有， 登记公信力中则为登记。 在权 利表征效力上， 占有较之登记劣势明显， 不利于价值巨大的不动产交易的 安全保护。 在已经建立较为完善的不动产登记制度的前提下， 不动产领域 的交易安全保护应由登记公信力来完成， 善意取得制度仍应以对动产为其 规范的对象。 第四部分以程序为视角研究了登记公信力的制度保障， 实质审查， 更 正登记和异议登记共同构成了登记公信力制度上的保障。 首先， 在登记审 查制度上， 对德国和瑞士登记审查制度进行比较考察，为我国未来的登记 审查制度提供制度上可资借鉴的立法实例。我国未来的登记审查制度构 建， 应以我国债权形式主义物权变动模式为制度基础， 采行实质审查主义， 形成制度内部的体系呼应， 以最大限度确保登记真实， 降低交易的风险和 成本。其次，更正登记乃法律赋予权利人纠正登记错误的救济手段，可依 权利人更正登记请求权或登记机关主动更正而启动。 在更正登记与登记公 信力关系上， 更正登记可适用于权利登记和表彰登记， 而登记公信力仅可 3 针对权利登记而发生。更为重要的是，更正登记仅属于事前救济，若登记 公信力生效之后， 则无更正登记产生之可能。 本部分最后研究的是异议登 记。当事人更正登记的请求被拒绝，为对抗登记的公信力，可在登记簿上 作成异议登记。 登记公信力由此在法律规定的期限内被暂时切断， 第三人 即使善意信赖登记之内容，也不可取得该登记之不动产物权。 德国民法 典上，异议登记可依利害关系人的书面同意或假处分而启动。我国物 权法虽有异议登记的规定，但欠缺科学的启动机制设计，应予以完善。 第五部分是我国未来登记公信力的制度设计， 这也是本文的结尾，立 足于我国当前的制度资源与现实基础的分析， 提出我国应确立登记公信力 制度的建立。最后，在总结前文研究结果的基础上，勾勒出我国未来登记 公信力制度设计的总体框架和若干具体制度构想， 并以此作为全文的结束 语。 关键词：关键词： 物权变动 物权公示 登记公信力 不动产善意取得 交 易安全 i abstract the indication validity of registry is a traditional system in the property right law. it makes sense in providing trade security and preserving from the risks. going through the wash of the history and the check of the practice, it has been acknowledged by theory and legislation in all civil law country. our countrys property right law has established the will formalism pattern for the property right transference and constructed registration system for the real property preliminarily, but it omitted the very important system, that is the indication validity of registry. this paper used research methods like comparative analysis、value analysis、historical analysis、legal interpretation synthetically to make a study and comb through the rational connotation ofhe indication validity of the registry systematically, then structure the scientific theoretical outlook, to clarify the connection and the interaction between the specific systematic function of the indication validity of registry and the system of the property right transference. all above-mentioned are aiming to answer the significant practical question whether our countrys legislation can adopt the system of the indication validity of registry, and to provide probable formulas to choose for our countrys systemization of the indication validity of registry in the future. this paper has five parts in all. the first part fully analysed the system connotation, legal value and legal construction of the indication validity of registry. firstly, i will give the basic connotation of the indication validity of registry, that is when the registry was wrongly entered and the third party dont know the mistake and do trade with the nominal person due to the wrong registry, the third party can attain the registered real property doubtlessly upon the good faith in the registry; the true obligee cant request the third party to return the property. from the legal value aspect, the chief value of the indication validity of registry lies in the protection of the trade security. on the efficiency view, the indication validity of registry can reduce the trade cost, so that offering an effective inspiration mechanism. on the legal construction, the indication validity of registry must ii have specific composites to exert its security value and efficiency value to the fullest. meanwhile, the basic value of the indication validity of registry inevitably educe its legal effect, namely the third party attained the real property registered doubtlessly and the true obligee lose the property right accordingly. the second part briefly introduced the three different patterns of transfer of the property right. they are pattern based on autonomy of the will, pattern of property right formalism and pattern of will formalism. i will do some comparisons from theoretic and legislative aspects between them. france is the very type of the pattern based on autonomy of the will. the transfer of the property right will go into effect in the event of the parties reach agreement on the contract for credit. the transfer is the direct legal outcome of the agreement on the contract for credit. the public notification is just the element for counterwork. while, the property right formalism requires an independent contract of property right besides the contract for credit, then combined with the public notification as delivery or registry to validate the transfer.civil code of germanuse theory of juristic act of right in rem as the basis to build one of the three transfer patterns-property right formalism. will formalism denied the existence of the independent property right contract in the property right formalism. it suggests that the transfer of the property right is the effect of the contract for credit combined with the delivery or registry. our countrys property right lawadopted the pattern of will formalism. though the pattern based on autonomy of the will is in favor of the convenient trade, it has an obvious flaw, lacking logic, which always made it complex and conflict when being applied to. on the contrary, property right formalism and will formalism are consistent in the logic and the relationship is clear when they are being applied to. so they are useful to protect the trade security, which is a big system advantage compared with the pattern based on autonomy of the will. the indication validity of registry has no utterly inevitable relationship with the specific pattern of the transfer of the property right, but it is more reasonable to combine the formalism with authoritative faith in the registry. the third part probed into the system harmony and functional substitution iii between the indication validity of registry and other relevant systems. firstly, the indication validity of registry has some functional overlay with the theory of juristic act of right in rem. this paper through the review of the basic connotation of the theory of juristic act of right in rem and its comparison with the indication validity of registry;it believed that the inherent flaw of the theory of the juristic act of right in rem made it cant provide perfect protection for the trade security which are due. while, the indication validity of registry can make up for the flaw in the right disposal during the trade. it offered more effective protection to the third party. meanwhile, the indication validity of registry proved to be more flexible when weighing the interest between the true obligee and the third party. hence, on the protection of the trade security, the indication validity of registry should replace the theory of the juristic act of right in rem. secondly, the indication validity of registry also has system substitution problem with the bona fide acquisition of real property. this paper firstly clarify the misunderstandings of the meaning of the bona fide acquisition of real property, then reveal the substantive difference between the indication validity of registry and the bona fide acquisition of real property. it rests on different right token to get the third partys trust, to the bona fide acquisition of real property it is the possession of the real property, and to the indication validity of registry it is the registry. on the efficacity of the right token, possession is in an obviously inferior position compared with registry, for it go against the trade security to the real property with huge value. on the premise that a relatively perfect real property registry system has already established, in the realm of the real property, the protection of the trade security should hang over to the authoritative faith in the registry to achieve, and the bona fide acquisition of real property should confined to regulate the trade security in the realm of the movable property. the forth part studied the systematic safeguard of the indication validity of registry from the procedure aspect. substantive censor, correction registration and opposition registration are three basic elements structured the systematic safeguard of the indication validity of registry together. firstly, on the system of registry censor, i will do some comparison between the iv legislation of german and switzerland to provide legislative instances for our country to use for reference in the future. our countrys future system on registry censor should rely on the pattern of will formalism and adopted substantive censor to form system echo from the inner side, then ensure the registration trueness to the maximum, reducing the risk and cost in the trade. secondly, correction registration is a remedy which the law entitled the obligee to correct the wrong registry. the startup of the correction registration can according to the correct petition submitted by the obligee or the registration department correct it initiatively. on the relationship between the correction registration and, the indication validity of registry correction registration can apply to registry of rights and registry for citation, while the indication validity of registry can only come into being due to the registry of the rights. more importantly, correction registration belongs to the beforehand remedy, if the indication validity of registry come into effect, there is no possibility of the correction registration to arise. the end of this part probed into the opposition registration. when the correction petition of the party interested is turned down, in order to withstand the correctness of the registry, he or she can make opposition registration, which can cut off the indication validity of registry temporarily within the term stipulated by the law. even the third party believed in the contents of the registration with good will, he or she can not attain the real property registered. incivil code of german, correction registration can startup according to the consent of the interested parties or fake disposal. our countrys property right lawhave provisions of opposition registration, but it lacks the initiative mechanism which we should make up for. the fifth part discussed the system devise of our countrys indication validity of registry in future and that is the papers ending. based on our countrys current institutional resources and the analysis of the realities, i think that our country should establish the system of the indication validity of registry. at last, on summing up all the fruits we get previously, i draw the outline of the general framework and some specific institutional ideas for our countrys indication validity of registry in future. and that is the tag of the v whole paper. key words: transfer of property right ; publication of property right; the indication validity of registry; bona fide acquisition of real property; security in transaction 1 目目 录录 引 言 . 1 一、制度本位：登记公信力的法律内涵 . 2 （一）登记公信力的概念及其展开 . 2 1、概念的界定 . 2 2、登记公信力与登记推定力 . 2 (二)登记公信力的法律价值 . 4 1、概述 . 4 2、登记公信力的安全价值 . 5 3、登记公信力的效率价值 . 6 (三)登记公信力的法律适用要件 . 7 1、登记簿记载内容与物权实际状态不一致 . 7 2、不动产物权变动须基于法律行为 . 7 3、第三人须为善意且无重大过失 . 8 4、须无异议登记存在 . 9 5、登记公信力适用要件争议 . 10 (四)登记公信力的法律效果 . 10 1、登记公信力的具体表现形式 . 10 2、关于登记公信力法律效果须注意的要点 . 11 3、登记公信力与登记错误损害赔偿 . 12 二、制度背景：物权变动模式与登记公信力 . 13 (一)物权变动与物权公示 . 13 (二)物权变动模式比较考察 . 14 1、意思主义的物权变动模式 . 15 2、形式主义的物权变动模式 . 16 3、物权变动模式优劣比较 . 17 (三)登记公信力与物权变动模式关系追问 . 19 三、制度协调;登记公信力的功能替代 . 22 (一)登记公信力与物权行为理论 . 22 1、物权行为理论概述 . 22 2、登记公信力与物权行为理论作用机制比较 . 23 2 3、登记公信力与物权行为理论优劣比较 . 23 4、制度替代之合理性分析 . 24 (二)登记公信力与不动产善意取得之理论争鸣 . 25 1、问题的提出 . 25 2、形式差异权利表征的不同 . 26 3、实质差异公示手段的公信力强弱分明 . 27 4、对不动产善意取得的反驳 . 28 四、制度保障：登记公信力程序研究 . 30 (一)登记审查制度研究 . 30 1、登记审查模式比较考察 . 30 2、我国不动产登记审查制度构建 . 30 (二)更正登记研究 . 33 1、更正登记的概念与内涵 . 33 2、更正登记的启动机制 . 34 3、更正登记与登记公信力的关系 . 35 (三)异议登记研究 . 36 1、异议登记概念的界定 . 36 2、异议登记的法律内涵 . 36 3、异议登记的法律效力 . 38 4、异议登记的消灭 . 40 五、建立我国的登记公信力制度 . 38 (一)登记公信力确立之正当性 . 41 (二)我国登记公信力制度的构想(代结语) . 41 参考文献 . 45 1 引引 言言 在我国市场经济高速发展之际，我国不动产交易获得了迅猛的增长， 并且成为拉动经济增长的重要力量。 在如此高频度的不动产交易中， 国家 制度的适度介入， 对于市场秩序的维护、交易主体间利益冲突的平衡有着 重要的积极意义，并由此给经济增长创造出更大的空间。 物权法的适 时出现，极大的满足了此种制度需求。不无遗憾的是，在交易安全保护的 制度设计上， 物权法遗漏了登记公信力这一民法上的传统制度，而代 之以不动产善意取得制度。 为弥补登记公信力的制度缺位对不动产交易安 全所带来潜在的危险， 本文力图以体系化的视角，不仅仅停留在抽象层面 对登记公信力制度的法律结构和具体规则的理论解读， 更着重于登记公信 力与相关民法制度间的互动协调， 以求得登记公信力较为全面并且立体化 的理论图景。本文写作的最终目的，也在于通过投石问路的尝试，力所能 及的为我国 物权法 未来采行登记公信力制度的合理性论证以及具体制 度的选择与构建，提供恰当的理论准备。 2 一一、制度本位制度本位: :登记公信力登记公信力的法律的法律内涵内涵 （一一）登记公信力的概念登记公信力的概念及其展开及其展开 1 1、概念的界定概念的界定 “以法学方法论之术语而论， 概念之意义经设定为： 概念所欲描述之 对象的特征，已经被穷尽地列举” 。 1对登记公信力法律概念的准确把握， 有助于我们在“穷尽列举”其特征的基础上，更为实质性的把握其制度内 涵。 因此， 我们须首先从采纳登记公信力的德国和瑞士在民法典里的表述 着手。 德国民法典第 892 条规定： “为有利于以法律行为取得某不动产 的某权利或取得该权利上的权利的人，不动产登记簿的内容视为正确” 。 瑞士民法典的表述更为明确，其第 973 条规定： “善意无过失信赖不 动产登记簿的记载取得所有权等物权的人，其取得被保护或维持” 。 民法学说对登记公信力的定义，也各有见解:“所谓不动产登记公信 力， 是指法律推定登记名义人为实际权利人， 信赖登记名义人并与其有所 有作为者，被推定为善意，并能善意取得其所预期的不动产物权” 。 2“登记的公信力是指对于登记内容予以信赖者，法律根据信赖内容赋予 法律效果。纵使登记内容与实体关系不一致，法律亦视为登记内容正确， 从而发生与真实的权利状况一样的法律效果” 。 3 由前引法条与学说可见， 登记公信力的内涵可界定为： 如登记簿记载 与真实权属状况不符， 则对于该不实登记不知情的第三人而言， 当其与登 记名义人以法律行为发生物权变动关系时， 其可基于