On November 17, 2009, HE Jing and HE Min-Yang (hereinafter “the Plaintiffs”) filed an application to the Northern Region Branch, National Property Administration of the Ministry of Finance (hereinafter “the Defendant”) for the purchase of a piece of state-owned land under the provision of Article 52-2 of the National Property Act, which provides, “In respect of non-public use real estate that had been used for building and dwelling before December 31, 1946 and has been continuously in such use, the current user may, by January 13, 2015, submit the relevant documents and apply to the National Property Administration or its branch offices for purchase. When the application is approved, the land concerned, which is not larger than 500 square meters, shall be valuated on the basis of its first announced current worth.” (hereinafter “the Provision”). In its decision communicated by Letter Tai-Tsai-Chan-Pei-Chu-1014000118 (hereinafter “the Decision”), the Defendant rejected the application on the ground that the requirements set out in the Provision are not satisfied. Contesting the Decision, the Plaintiffs filed an administrative appeal with the Ministry of Finance. Adjudicating on the administrative appeal, the Ministry of Finance dismissed the administrative appeal on the ground that the dispute pertained to private law. The Plaintiffs then appealed the dismissal adjudication of Ministry of Finance to the Taipei High Administrative Court through the procedures of administrative litigation. In the ruling of 101-Su-995 (2012), the Taipei High Administrative Court held the dispute to be one of private rights between the complainants and the administrative agency concerned arising from the latter acting as the state fisc (Fiskus), which was subject to the jurisdiction of civil courts, and transferred it to the Taiwan Taipei District Court. The Plaintiffs then appealed the said ruling of the Taipei High Administrative Court to the Supreme Administrative Court. In the ruling of 101-Tsai-2218 (2012), the Supreme Administrative Court held the Decision to be an administrative act, which was subject to the jurisdiction of administrative courts, and vacated the said ruling, remanding the case to the Taipei High Administrative Court. In the judgment of 101-Su-Geng-Yi-141 (2012), the Taipei High Administrative Court dismissed the case on the ground that it was baseless. The Plaintiffs then appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court. Citing Resolution No. 2 of the First Joint Conference of the Supreme Administrative Court of June 2015 (hereinafter “the Resolution”), the Supreme Administrative Court rendered the judgment of 104-Pan-396 (2015) (hereinafter “the Judgment”). In the Judgment, it was held that the dispute arising from applications for the purchase of non-public use real estate pertained to private law and was subject to the jurisdiction of civil courts. The judgment of 101-Su-Geng-Yi-141 (2012) was thus vacated and the case transferred to the Taiwan Taipei District Court.
The petitioner judge of the Jin Division of the Fifth Panel of the Taiwan Taipei District Civil Court (hereinafter “the Petitioner”) believed that the pending case, 104-Su-3243 (2015), arising from the application for the purchase of the State-owned land is a matter of public law, while the plaintiffs demurred that the dispute concerned should be adjudicated by ordinary courts in reply to the Petitioner’s elicitation to both parties. The Petitioner thus filed a petition for uniform interpretation with this Court pursuant to Article 182-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure on grounds that s/he differed from the Judgment on the question of jurisdiction. The petition for uniform interpretation is granted as it satisfies the requirements of Article 7, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1 of the Constitutional Interpretation Procedure Act and Article 182-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This Interpretation is rendered on the following grounds:
Under the current dual system of litigation, the distinction between civil and administrative jurisdictions is to be made by the Legislative Yuan with comprehensive consideration to the nature of disputes and the function of the existing litigation system (such as the court organization, the personnel allocation, the relevant procedural rules, and the immediate and effective protection of the people’s rights and so on.) Where the law is silent on the provision for jurisdiction over judicial remedies, decisions on such jurisdictional issues shall be made on the basis of the nature of disputes and the function of the existing litigation system. In other words, disputes arising from relationships governed by private law shall be decided by ordinary courts; disputes arising from relationships governed by public law shall be decided by administrative courts. (See J.Y. Interpretation Nos. 466, 691, 695, 758, and 759.)
The impugned Provision merely provides, “…the current user may…apply to the National Property Administration or its branch offices for purchase. When the application is approved...”. Whether disputes arising from the rejection of such applications are subject to the jurisdiction of ordinary courts or that of administrative courts is left unstipulated. In consideration of the aforementioned J.Y. Interpretations, the matter of jurisdiction shall be decided on the basis of the nature of disputes.
Article 52-2 of the National Property Act, an amendment thereto, which was promulgated on January 12, 2000, provided, “In respect of non-public use real estate that had been used for building and dwelling before December 31, 1946 and has been continuously in such use, the current user may, within three years from the date of the coming into effect of this Amendment, submit the relevant documents and apply to the National Property Administration or its branch offices for purchase. When the application is approved, the land concerned, which is not larger than 500 square meters, shall be valuated on the basis of its first announced current worth.” Article 52-2 of the National Property Act was then amended as the Provision on February 6, 2003, extending the deadline of applications for the purchase of non-public use real estate to January 13, 2015. The legislative purpose of Article 52-2 of the National Property Act is to allow the current users an opportunity to purchase the lands that have been registered as public lands but have long been in constant use for their dwellings, in the consideration that, when the government administered the general land title registration, a good many lands that had been used for private dwellings for generations were mistakenly registered as public lands due to existing dwellers’ lack of information or unfamiliarity with the relevant laws, resulting in the unauthorized possession of public lands. (See Bill-Related Documents of the Seventeenth Meeting of the Second Session of the Fifth Legislative Yuan, p. 86) The State carried out the general land title registration and registered the above lands as public lands in the exercise of its sovereign power. The Provision that allows the current users to apply for purchase of those public lands is strongly policy-driven. The National Property Administration’s decision as to whether to approve such applications in pursuance of the Provision is an exercise of State power. In addition, the relationship between the two parties to such applications is necessarily one between the State and private persons. Such legal relationship is inconceivable between private persons. Furthermore, if both the applicant and the real estate concerned satisfy the terms and conditions, the competent authority shall approve her or his application without delay and valuate the sale price in accordance with relevant laws. To such situation the principle of freedom of contract in private law does not apply. Hence the decision of the National Property Administration as to whether to approve such applications is a unilateral administrative action with direct and external legal effect. It is an administrative act, not an act of the state fisc (Fiskus), and thus pertains to public law.
In sum, decisions of the National Property Administration of the Ministry of Finance or its branch offices in respect of applications for the purchase of non-public use real estate under the impugned provision pertain to public law. In respect of such decisions, the complainant applicant must seek relief through administrative appeals and litigation the judicial review of which is subject to the jurisdiction of administrative courts.
In respect of the petitioner’s request for a supplemental interpretation of J.Y. Interpretation Nos. 371 and 572, this Court finds that the wording of both J.Y. Interpretations is not ambiguous, nor is there any flaw in their reasoning. Hence no supplemental interpretation is needed. In respect of the petitioner’s request for an interpretation of the Resolution, this Court finds that the Resolution is a legal opinion the Supreme Administrative Court adopted to unify differing judicial interpretations of statutes or regulations. Not being a statute in and of itself, the Resolution is not a subject matter in respect of which a judge may file petition with this Court for an interpretation. Hence the petition in this regard fails to satisfy the requirements for a judge to file a petition. The foregoing two parts of the petition are dismissed accordingly.
＊Translated by Hui-Wen CHEN and Ming-Sung KUO