物权请求权是否应成为诉讼时效客体的分析

Investigation into Whether Right of Real Right Claim Should Be Object of Litigatious Prescription

诉权保护是主体权利的重要内容,对诉权的保护不能是无限的。当权利人在一定期限内不行使诉权的情况下,即丧失要求国家对该权利进行强制保护的权利。依据法律,只有债权请求权才能成为诉讼时效的客体,将物权请求权完全排斥于诉讼时效的客体之外。围绕物权请求权是否应适用诉讼时效制度问题展开探讨。依据诉讼时效的一般原理,大部分物权请求权不应适用诉讼时效制度。但从实现诉讼时效制度社会目的的角度出发,认为物权请求权中的恢复原状请求权和返还原物请求权与债权请求权类似,应该成为诉讼时效的客体,如果将其排斥在外将危及社会稳定。

Protection of the right of appeal is an important part of the right of the litigatious subject. However, the protection of the right of appeal can not be unlimited. In order to supervise the exercise of the rights of the subject in a timely manner, the litigatious prescription should be prescribed. When a citizen who enjoys rights didn＇t exercise the right of appeal in a certain period of time, he would lose the right to require the state protect his rights. According to the law of our country, the scope of the objects of the litigatious prescription system is limited to the right of creditor＇s right claim. The right of real right claim will be completely excluded from the object of the litigatious prescription. The question is explored whether the right of real right claim should be applied to the litigatious prescription system. First of all, based on the general principle of litigatious prescription, it is found that most of the right of real right claim should not apply to the system. After that, from the point of view of the achievement of the social purpose of the litigatious presciption, the view is held that the recovery of the right of original state claim and return of the right of original object claim are similar to the right of creditor＇s rights claim, Furthermore, their exclusion from the object of the litigatious presciption would jeopardize social stability. Ultimately, it is concluded that recovering the right of original state claim and return of the right of original object claim should also become the object of the litigatious prescription.