物权请求权是否适用消灭时效.pdfVIP

物权请求权是否适用消灭时效 中文摘要 物权请求权是否适用消灭时效 中文摘要 由于我国目前关于时效制度的立法还不够完善，既未对取得时效进行立法上的规 定，也未对物权请求权和债权请求权的消灭时效做出区分规定；因此，在不仅我国甚 至各国法学理论以及司法实践中，对物权请求权是否适用消灭时效一直都存在着不小 争议，各理论学说概括起来有肯定说、否定说和折中说三种。 目前，物权请求权的性质有物权说，债权说以及准债权说，笔者认为物权请求权 的性质应采纳第三种学说。因此，即使物权请求权是否适用消灭时效的问题在学界有 三种理论争议，但根据物权请求权的性质以及不动产登记的特殊性来说，笔者偏向于 采纳折中说的观点，认为我国物权法上的返还原物请求权、排除妨害和消除危险请求 权对于动产以及未经登记的不动产应有消灭时效之适用，建议将来立法机关出台有关 的司法解释予以明确。 关键词：请求权；物权请求权；时效制度；消灭时效 作者：郭梦琳 指导老师：章正璋 I 英文摘要 物权请求权是否适用消灭时效 WHETHERTHEREALRINHTCLIAMISAPPLICABLE FOR THE LIMITATION OF ACTION OR NO Abstract Since Chinas current legislation on prescription system is not perfect, neither the Acquisitive prescription is not made on time and did not make a distinction between the provisions of the Real Right and the elimination of creditor claims timeliness; Thus, even in our countries not only law theory and judicial practice, on the claim of the right to destroy limitation applies whether there have been no small controversy, summed up the various theories assert that negative to say and compromise, say for sure. Currently, the nature of the claim of the right of property, there are three theories, Property said,Creditors said and Prospective creditors said, I believe that the nature of the claim of the right should adopt the third doctrine. Therefore, even if the applicable claim of the right to destroy aging issues in the academic community, there are three theoretical controversy, but according to the nature of th