|
|
|
| "Separation of House and Land": The Key to Homestead Transfer, Taking the Dilemma of "Inheritance of Homestead" as the Starting Point |
| Zhang Songlun |
| Institute of Land Legal System Studies, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, Guangzhou 510420, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract In the right group of homestead, which right of rights can be transferred? There are a lot of arguments over this question in both academic and practical areas. It seems that the question of the inheritance of the ownership of rural house buildings on the homestead and the right to use them is imminent, although the question of market circulation (such as sale and mortgage) can still be suspended. Some scholars insist that the right to the use of homestead cannot be inherited due to its nature of social security and social welfare. But it is not true. This paper reflects and criticizes this cliche, and tries to point out that the essence of the homestead system is not based on social security, but on the economic management in the planned economy. The focus of homestead is not “every household has a residence”, but “households will have solid residences”. By determining the residence of farmers, it maintains the urban-rural dual system. Whether to restrict or to liberalize the circulation of the right of homestead does not depend on the nature of social security of the rule of homestead system.In this regard, the Ministry of Natural Resources issued a document to clarify that the ownership of rural houses on the homestead can be inherited, and determine that the use right to rural houses can be inherited by urban residents. The principle of this doctrine is the rule of integration of real estate and land. However, the integration of real estate and land aims at urban houses, and the purpose is to clarify the integrated transfer of land use right and the ownership of house. There is no such context in the homestead problem, and the law should not rashly accept the integration of real estate and land as the basic logic of homestead. In the context of rural revitalization, the development of the homestead system should be emphasized on the actual use of homestead. Therefore, taking inheritance as the starting-point to open the circulation, although taking into account custom and tradition, it is still relatively extensive and less precise: the key is to estimate whether the use of homestead is conducive to the development of collective economy and the construction of agricultural countryside, and whether the use value of homestead as land is really brought into play.For the above reasons, the author believes the ownership of rural houses and the right to the use of the homestead should be separated at the level of right. The ownership of rural houses comes from the construction of farmers at their own expense, which should be attributed to property rights, while as a management system, the right to the use of the homestead emphasizes on economic controls. Although the right to the use of the homestead is included in the usufructuary right in the civil code, it does not mean that it equals to the general property. Therefore, the two should be seen and treated completely differently. In the current situation, under the guiding ideology of “major reform must be based on the law”, it has institutional legitimacy and economic rationality to separate the ownership of rural houses on homestead from the right to the use of the homestead. In the institutional structure of house land separation, the ownership of rural houses is an inheritable property right, while the right to the use of the homestead restitutes to collective economic organizations as an “vacuum” right, and applies to the model of legal lease. The person who obtains the ownership of rural houses takes the legal lease right of homestead use right as the right basis, which can not only ensure that the use right of homestead is retained in the hands of collective economic organizations, but also realize the separation of three rights of homestead in a better way. In practice, when making a distinction, it should not address to the distinction of “inheritance” or “transaction”, but should focus on “house” and “right to use”, and ensure that collective economic organizations hold the right to use. In this way, the transaction market of rural houses (including rental and transaction) can be liberalized, while the basic instruction of the rule of homestead can be kept.
|
|
Received: 13 May 2021
|
|
|
|
1 高圣平： 《农村宅基地制度：从管制、赋权到盘活》，《农业经济问题》2019年第1期，第60-72页。
2 陈小君： 《宅基地使用权的制度困局与破解之维》，《法学研究》2019年第3期，第48-72页。
3 宋志红： 《乡村振兴背景下的宅基地权利制度重构》，《法学研究》2019年第3期，第73-92页。
4 吴迪、陈凤： 《中国宅基地制度改革回顾、思考与展望——以宅基地“三权分置”改革为背景》，《中国房地产·学术版》2020年第9期，第8-12页。
5 刘国栋： 《论宅基地“三权分置”的法实现》，见刘云生主编： 《中国不动产法研究》第2辑，北京：法律出版社，2018年，第141-153页。
6 钟仁耀主编： 《社会救助与社会福利》，上海：上海财经大学出版社，2019年。
7 周其仁： 《城乡中国》，北京：中信出版集团，2017年。
8 刘守英： 《土地制度与中国发展》，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2018年。
9 高圣平： 《宅基地制度改革政策的演进与走向》，《中国人民大学学报》2019年第1期，第23-33页。
10 刘国栋： 《论宅基地三权分置政策中农户资格权的法律表达》，《法律科学（西北政法大学学报）》2019年第1期，第192-200页。
11 张建文、李红玲： 《宅基地使用权继承取得之否定——宅基地“法定租赁权”的解释路径》，《河北法学》2016年第12期，第28-39页。
12 意］彼德罗·彭梵得： 《罗马法教科书》，黄风译，北京：中国政法大学出版社，2005年。
13 董新辉： 《新中国70 年宅基地使用权流转：制度变迁、现实困境、改革方向》，《中国农村经济》2019年第6期，第2-27页。
14 高海： 《宅基地使用权继承：案例解析与立法构造》，《东方法学》2018年第5期，第98-108页。
15 江晓华： 《宅基地使用权转让的司法裁判立场研究》，《法律科学（西北政法大学学报）》2017年第1期，第 191-200页。
16 刘恒科： 《宅基地“三权分置”的理论阐释与法律构造》，《华中科技大学学报（社会科学版）》2020年第4期，第104-114页。
17 谢在全： 《民法物权论》，北京：中国政法大学出版社，1999年。
18 韩松： 《论宅基地分配政策和分配制度改革》，《政法论丛》2021年第1期，第70-82页。 |
|
|
|
2022, Vol. 52 
