登记对抗主义下相对性物权说之批判

Criticism of the Theory of Relative Real Right under Registration Antagonism

登记对抗主义物权变动规则由设立要件与对抗要件构成,其适用难点在于如何解释对抗要件所产生的登记对抗效力。相对性物权说在承认未登记物权仍为物权属性可对抗一般债权的前提下,主张未登记物权不能对抗特殊债权乃对抗要件发挥其登记对抗效力的必然结果,进而认为,在登记对抗主义下,依据合同设立的未登记物权具有相对性。然而,该学说偏离了物权界定规则与登记对抗规则的位阶关系,对域外法的借鉴未能作出契合本土的诠释,导致设立要件与对抗要件的功能错位。实质上,相对性物权说是以物权的相对性替换债权物权化。特殊债权优先受偿与登记对抗效力不存在必然联系,因而不应纳入登记对抗效力的调整范围。

The change rule of real right under registration antagonism consists of establishment elements and antagonistic elements,and the difficulty of its application lies in how to explain the identification of the registration antagonistic effectiveness generated by antagonistic elements.The theory of relative real right claims that the unregistered real right cannot oppose the special creditor’s right on the premise of admitting that the unregistered real right can still oppose the general creditor’s right,which is the inevitable result of antagonistic elements exerting their registration antagonistic effectiveness.Accordingly,under registration antagonism,the unregistered real right established according to the contract is of the relativity attribute.However,this theory deviates from the hierarchical relationship between the definition rules of real right and the registration antagonistic rules,and fails to make a local interpretation of the foreign laws,resulting in the functional dislocation of establishment elements and antagonistic elements.In essence,the theory of relative real right replaces real right tendency of creditor’s right with the relativity of real right.There is no necessary relationship between the priority of special claims and the effectiveness of registration,so it should not be included in the scope of adjustment of registration effectiveness.