【作者】 黄鑫；

【导师】 张驰；

【作者基本信息】 华东政法学院 ， 民商法， 2006， 硕士

【摘要】 物上请求权能否适用诉讼时效的问题,一直以来争论颇多。在《中国民法典》制定的前夜,解决这一难题显得尤为必要。本文首先探讨了物上请求权的性质,在评析了各类学说的基础上,持赞同独立请求权说的立场。认为:物上请求权是一种依附于物权的相对独立请求权。这一结论是建立在两个层次的分析之上的:其一,对物上请求权的上位概念――请求权的分析。认为从民事权利构造的角度说,任何民事权利均包含着基础权利和请求权两部分。请求权并不是债权所独有的,物权、人格权等绝对权中也有请求权。而且完整意义上的请求权是由“应然性请求权”与“实然性请求权”所构成的:前者是基础权利行使正常时,作为民事权利的一部分而存在的;后者是当基础权利受到侵害时,以相对独立的救济权的形式而出现的。其二,将请求权的理论运用于物上请求权。物上请求权既不属于物权,也不属于债权,而是基于物权所产生的一项相对独立的请求权,因而应当适用请求权的相关规则。但物上请求权又是物权的一种天然保护手段,在很大程度上受基础权利物权的影响,与之同呼吸共命运,因而又具有不同于其他请求权的特殊之处。从物上请求权的性质来分析,应当只承认返还原物请求权、妨害排除请求权以及妨害防止请求权这三种类型。其次本文探讨了诉讼时效的效力和客体问题。在综合比较了几种学说的基础上,本文赞同抗辩权发生说,认为:诉讼时效期间届满后义务人产生对抗权利人的抗辩权。因此,相对于抗辩权的请求权即为诉讼时效的客体。请求权之所以应当适用诉讼时效,在于请求权的长期存在会使义务人一直处于权利不确定状态,因此法律必须对请求权的行使期间作一定的限制。最后本文探讨了物上请求权能否适用诉讼时效的问题。在回顾了大陆法系国家的立场以及评析各类学说的基础上,赞同其中的折衷说。认为:由于物上请求权属于请求权的一种,而诉讼时效的客体又是请求权,因此从理论上说物上请求权可以成为诉讼时效的客体。但在具体判断某一项物上请求权时,应当以“外观判断”为根本标准:即这种物上请求权所针对的妨害行为能否从外观上建立起一定的公示效果,进而因时间的经过而产生一定的公信力。从这一标准来看,已登记的不动产物权由于以物权登记簿上的记载为权利行使的外观,因此不具有误判的可能而不应当适用诉讼时效。而基于动产物权所产生的三种物上请求权,也只有返还原物请求权可以成为诉讼时效的客体。原因在于该请求权所针对的“无权占有”,会因时间的经过而使社会公众逐渐产生信任,进而与之建立起越来越密切的法律关系。此时如法律再加以断然破坏,势必造成社会经济秩序的不稳定。更多还原

【Abstract】 It is a controversial question whether petition right on property could apply to extinguishing limitation for a long time. On the eve of enacting Civil Law Of China, it is necessary to resolve this dispute.Firstly, this article discusses the nature of petition right on property, on the basic of analyzing and evaluating several theories, the author agrees with Independent Petition Right Theory. The author figures out that petition right on property is a dependent petition right attached to property right. This conclusion is established on the two levels. The first level is established on analyzing petition right that is an epigynous concept of petition right on property. The author believes that any civil right includes two parts from the civil right structure perspective, which are basic right and petition right. The petition right is not exclusive in credit right. It’s also holding by property right, personality right, etc. A completed petition right composed by both ideal petition right and practical petition right. The former concept exists as part of civil right when normally exercising basic right. The latter concept exists in form of relief right that is relative independent when the basic right is infringed. The second level is established on making petition right theory apply to petition right on property. The petition right on property is falling into neither property right nor credit right, but emerges as a relative independent right on the basic of property right. We should apply relevant rules of petition right to them. But petition right on property is an inartificial protection method, which is deeply influenced by basic right to some degrees. So petition right on property has different characteristic from the other petition rights. There are three kinds of petition right on property, just as follows: claim for restitution, claim for removal of obstacles, claim for preventing the harm to ownership.Secondly, this article discusses the effect and object of the extinguishing limitation. The author agrees with The Right To Defense Occurrence Theory, which believes that obligor have right to defense against the obligee after the extinguishing limitation period. So petition right, which is against the right to defense, is the object of extinguishing limitation. The reason of application of extinguishing limitation is the long-term existence of petition right will make the obligee be in an uncertain state. So the law should impose restriction on the petition right’s exercising period.At last, this article discusses whether the petition right on property will be applied to extinguishing limitation. The author agrees with The Compromise Theory after retrospecting the stance of the civil law countries and analyzing all kinds of theories. This article holds the view that petition right on property is one of the petition right, the object of extinguishing limitation is petition right, so petition right on property could become the object of extinguishing limitation. When judging on some specific petition right on property, the“Appearance Judgment”should become the fundamental standard, which refers to whether the obstacles aiming at property could establish certain publication effect in appearance and then brings into certain public trust power. The registered real property right, which exercises rights on form of registering property right on registration book, should not apply to extinguishing limitation because of lack of misjudgment possibility. In personality property, there is only one petition right on property, which is claim for restitution, could become the object of extinguishing limitation. The reason is the unauthorized occupying, which is the form of obstacle of claim for restitution, will make the general public gradually trust the occupier is owner and establish more and more legal relation with them after the time past. At this time, if the law damages the relations suddenly, it will make the social and economic order unstable.更多还原