占有改定取得的物权能否对抗善意第三人?——兼评我国《物权法》第27条的法律适用

About How Property Right from ConstitutumP ossessorium Copes with Bona Fide Third Party: On the Application of Article 27 of China's “Property Law”

占有改定作为动产物权变动的一种方式,在当事人之间产生物权移转和相关风险负担一并移转的法律后果。但是,占有改定作为观念交付的一种方式欠缺动产物权变动的外在表现方式,第三人无从知晓物权的变动状况,此时若出让人复将该物出让给善意第三人,原权利人与善意第三人之间发生争议,原权利人能否以自己取得的物权具有排他性而主张对抗善意第三人?由于我国《物权法》没有对占有改定的法律效力做出特别规定,如果按照一般逻辑适用《物权法》关于"交付"的有关规则,将会导致其结果与善意取得、公示公信原则等制度发生冲突、并且在司法实践中出现"同案不同判"的问题。本文结合占有改定的制度价值和体系设计的基础两个方面对这一问题形成的原因进行分析,从理论和法律逻辑等方面论证了占有改定取得的物权在公示和公信力上的欠缺理由,在此基础上对我国《物权法》第27条的适用和立法完善提出了相关的建议。

Constitutum possessorium is a legal means of transferring movable property right and related risks between the concerning parties. However, as a means of conceptual transfer, it lacks the external manifestations of the movable property right transfer, resulting in the third party failing to know the previous history of the property. At this time, if the transferor transfer the movable property to a bona fide third person, there would be disputes between the right holder and the bona fide third party. In this case, can the right holder cope with bona fide third party based on the exclusive feature of property right? Since China's 'Property Law' does not contain special provisions for the legal effect of constitutum possessorium, if 'delivery' is made in accordance with general logic of 'Property Law', the result will conflict with systems of bona fide acquisition and demonstrative principle of real right and pose the problem of 'same case, different sentences'in the judicial practice. This paper analyzes the reasons for this problem from the aspects of the value of the constitutum possessorium system and its design system, demonstrating the inadequacy of constitutum possessorium system in terms of demonstrative principle of real right both by theory and by legal logic. Based on the study results, the paper proposes related advice on the application of Article 27 of China's 'Property Law' and its legislation improvement.