搜索
Front.LawChina2007,2(2):198–223DOI10.1007/s11463-007-0010-4RESEARCHARTICLELIANGHuixingSomeopinionsandsuggestionsonthedraftofrealpropertylaw©HigherEducationPressandSpringer-Verlag2007AbstractItissuggestedinthearticlethatexclusivityshouldbeaddedtothedefinitionoftherealpropertyright;thefollowingclausesshouldberevised:thedefinitionoftherealpropertyright,thecompetencyofevidenceoftheregisterofimmovables,theeffectivenessofthebonafideprotectionofrealpropertyregistration,thetortliabilitiesoftheregistrationauthority,possessionreformula-tion,stateownershipofwaterresourcesandwildliferesourcesandpublicutilities,bonafideacquisition,transferofcontractingandoperationalrights,andmortgage.Thefollowingprovisionsshouldbeadded:theownershipofreligiousproperty,theacquisitiveprescription,andthepledgeonbusiness.ItisalsosuggestedthattheprovisionsonclaimsinremprescribedinArticle39andArticle42bedeleted,andtheprovisionondwellingrights,thatis,ChapterXV,alsobedeleted.Keywordsdraftofpropertyrightslaw,revision,suggestion1DefinitionoftherealpropertyrightParagraph2ofArticle2:Therealpropertyrighthereinreferstotherightsofnatu-ralandlegalpersonstoallocatespecificthings,includingownership,usufructuaryrightsandsecurityrights.Itissuggestedthatexclusivityshouldbeaddedtothedefinitionoftherealpropertyright,whichshallberevisedas:therealpropertyrighthereinreferstotherightsofnaturalpersonsandlegalpersonstoallocatespecificthingsandexcludeTranslatedfromHenanZhengfaGuanliGanbuXueyuanXuebao河南省政法管理干部学院学报(JournalofHenanAdministrativeInstituteofPoliticsandLaw)(Zhengzhou),2006,(1):3–12,1–9LIANGHuixing()LawInstituteofChineseAcademyofSocialSciences,Beijing100720,ChinaE-mail:lhuixing@sina.comSomeopinionsandsuggestionsonthedraftofrealpropertylaw199theinterferencethereinbyothers,includingownership,usufructuaryrightsandsecurityrights.Realpropertyrightsare“exclusive”andeffectivein“excludingtheinterferencebyothers”,whichisofvitalsignificance.Whereisthedemarcationbetweenpublicpowerandprivaterights?Itisthe“exclusivity”ofpropertyrights.Whenthemembersofafamilystayintheirhouse,nopublicservantsofthestateauthoritycanintrudethehouseatanydiscretion,andthisdemarcationisthe“exclusivity”ofrealpropertyrights.Sincerealpropertyrightsarelegallyeffectiveinexcludingtheinterferencebyothers,thedemarcationbetweenpublicpowerandprivaterightsisdetermined.Thescopeoftheactivitiesofpublicpowerislimitedtooutsidethegateofthehouse,andthespacefortheactivitiesofprivaterightsislimitedtowithinthegateofthehouse.Thepublicpowerthattranscendssuchdemarcationshallmeeteitherofthefollowingconditions:holdingoftheconsentoftheownersoftherealpropertyrights,orpresentationofasearchwarrant.Asforthedefinitionofthepropertyrightsinthedraftlawofpropertyrights,the“exclusivity”ofpropertyrightsshallbeexpresslyprescribed.The“directalloca-tion”ofpropertyrightsistheinstinctofahumanbeingandits“naturalattribute”,asiscleartoall.However,such“exclusivity”isa“legalattribute”,whichshallbeexpresslyprescribedbylawandimbuedtothewholesociety,thusenablingpeo-ple,especiallypublicservants,torealizethe“exclusivity”ofpropertyrights,andclarifyingthedemarcationbetweenpublicpowerandprivaterights.Nonetheless,suchillegalactsasarbitraryintrusionofpolicemenintoothers’houses,arbitraryconfiscationofothers’vehiclesforceddismantlingofothers’housesmightnotbeprevented,andtheadministrationbylawwouldbeafarcry.Therearemanycivilrights,whileonlythe“exclusive”rightsamongthemareprotectedbycriminalandtortlaws.Stealingfromothers’houseswillconstituteacrimeoftheft,whilealootofpropertyonthestreetwillconstituteacrimeofloot.Why?Becausetherealpropertyrightsofothersare“exclusive”.Therightswithouttheeffectivenessof“exclusivityfromothers’interference”,suchasthoseincontract,areprotectedonlybycontractualobligations.Injudicialpractices,thedemarcationbetween“crimeandnon-crime”isfrequentlyinvolved,whichdependsonwhethertherightsinfringedare“exclusive”ornot.Theinfringementofthe“exclusive”rightsconstitutesacriminalact,whichiscertainlyakindof“crime”(thelessorofwhichwouldconstitutetortliability),andtheinfringementonthenon-“exclusive”rightswouldbeprosecutedwithobligationsforthebreachofcontract,whichiscertainly“notacrime”.The“exclusivity”ofpropertyrightsalsodependson“thejudgingevidence”.WhydidthejudgespassajudgmentincourtthatSimpsondidnotcommitacrimeintheO.J.SimpsonCaseseveralyearsagowherehisformerwifewaskilled?Thekeyisthatthecourthadverifiedthatthefederalpolicemenhadfoundtheoffen-siveweaponandtheblood-taintedgloves,bycrossingoverthefenceofSimpson’s200LIANGHuixinghousewithoutholdingasearchwarrant.Sincetheownershipoftheprivatehouseis“exclusive”,theentryintothehousebythefederalpolicemencrossingoverthefencewithouttheconsentofitsowner,ornon-presentationofthesearchwarrantwouldconstitutean“illegalact”,andtheevidenceobtainedbyan“illegalact”isan“illegalevidence”,whichissurelynot“effectiveasevidence”.ThedocumentofChineseSupremeCourtconcerningtheinterpretationofevidencealsopre-scribesthattheevidence“obtainedillegally”isnoteffectiveasevidence.Whattheniscalled“obtainedillegally”?Theentryintoprivat