Precedent T.S.T. No. 1065 (Sup. Ct., 1959) states that: “Once a separate-management contract of a co-ownership property has been concluded between its co-owners, the severance or separate-management contract shall remain   binding on an assignee even after a co-owner has assigned his/her share of such property to such assignee.” This is indeed necessary to maintain the stability of the legal order. However, if the assignee of the relevant share of the property received no notification of the separate-management contract concluded between the co-owners and ought not to have received such notification, the continued binding of that separate-management contract on the assignee may result in possible unforeseeable detriments to bona fide third parties. This is contrary to the Constitution’s intent of safeguarding the people’s property rights. Hence, with respect to the herein stated category, the abovementioned judgment shall no longer apply. It is also explained herein that, with respect to the question of whether the statutory vacant land of a separately owned building should be “jointly owned and jointly enjoyed” or “jointly owned but with exclusive enjoyment”, and the effect of its assignment, these matters should be dealt with by enacting relevant governing legislation as soon as possible.  

       Legal actions under the Civil Code can be classified as actions in personam and actions in rem. Unless specifically provided by law, the former shall have legal effect on persona certa while the later shall, upon notice being given to a third party through means of public announcement, have legal effect on any third party. Hence, means of public announcement, by delivery for movables and by registration for immovables, are essential conditions for the acquisition, forfeiture and alteration of rights and interests. This is to protect bona fide third parties. In the event that the third party actually received or ought to have received notification of the contract, its terms shall have legal effects on the third party notwithstanding that the contract may be in personam. Precedent T.S.T. No. 1065 (Sup. Ct., 1959) states that: “Once a separate-management contract of a co-ownership property has been concluded between its co-owners, the severance or separate-management contract shall remain binding on an assignee even after a co-owner has assigned his/her share of such property to such assignee.” This is indeed necessary to maintain the stability of the legal order. However, if the assignee of the relevant share of the property received no notification of the contract of separate management and ought not? to have received such notification, the continued binding of the separate-management contract between the co-owners on the assignee may result in possible unforeseeable detriments to bona fide third parties. This is contrary to the Constitution’s intent of safeguarding the people’s property rights. Hence, with respect to the herein stated category, the abovementioned judgment shall no longer apply. It is also explained herein that, with respect to the question of whether the statutory vacant land of  a separately owned building should be “jointly owned and jointly enjoyed” or “jointly owned but with exclusive enjoyment”, and the effect of its assignment, these matters should be dealt with by enacting relevant governing legislation as soon as possible.       

*Translated by Professor Wen-Yeu Wang.