对占有性质及占有保护目的理论的修正:从事实秩序到权利推定秩序

A Theoretical Amendment to the Theory of the Nature of Possession and the Purpose of Possession Protection——Centering on the Presumption of Possession

我国目前的通说认为,占有仅属于事实,而非权利,保护占有的目的在于维护公共秩序。然而,这一观点无法说明,单纯的占有事实为何可以引导占有状态以及占有保护的归属,在论证占有保护的缘由时也跳出了传统的私法框架,所构建的保护体系兼具公法保护范式与私法保护范式中的双重内容,由此引发了尖锐的矛盾。这在占有人已被法院明确推定或认定欠缺本权的情形中,得到了最为明显的体现。为了解决这些问题,需要对占有理论进行修正。首先,当占有人被法院明确“认定”为有权占有时,占有人应当被归为占有状态以及占有保护,其占有当属权利;而当占有人被依据占有事实,“推定”为有权占有时,无论其是否拥有真实的本权,都可以依据推定内容,合法且正当的被归为占有状态及占有保护,其占有应当被视作权利;当占有人被认定或推定为无权占有时,其占有状态构成对财产归属秩序的破坏,只属于单纯的事实。其次,占有保护的目的应当被限缩为维护推定秩序,保护的对象也应当限于法院推定或认定拥有本权的人。当占有人被推定或认为为无权占有时,便不应再受到保护,若其占有受到第三人的侵犯,那么应当将占有保护请求权归属于被法院推定或认定拥有本权的人;若其占有受到被法院推定或认定拥有本权的人的侵犯,那么后者的行为应当被界定为合法的自力救济行为,无碍于公共秩序。

The current general theory holds that possession is only a fact and does not give rights.The purpose of protecting possession is to maintain public order.However,this kind of explanation is very rigid,not only can not explain why the simple possession facts can cause the ownership of interests,but also break through the traditional logic of private law when proving the reasons for the protection of possession.The protection of possession has the paradigm of public law and private law,and there are sharp systemic contradictions,which is especially obvious in the case where the protected possessor has been clearly identified as lacking of the right.In order to solve the above problems,it is urgent to revise the nature of possession and the purpose of possession protection.First,when the possessor owns the presumed possession of the right,no matter whether they actually own the right or not,they can obtain the ownership of possession interests and exclusive possession protection according to the presumption.When the possessor lacks the presumed possession of the right,its possession has been recognized as illegal,and it is illegal interest.So such possession belongs to the right.Secondly,the purpose of possession protection should be limited to maintaining the presumption order,and the object of protection is limited to the person presumed to own the right.So,if the possessor owns the presumed possession of the right,the possessor’s possession can no longer be protected.When it is infringed by a third party,the claim arising therefrom shall be attributed to the presumed owner,while when it is infringed by the presumed owner,the latter behavior shall be defined as legal self-help without prejudice to public order.