茲將各章內容說明如次： 第一章：緒論。介紹本文之研究目的及方法。 第二章：祭祀公業土地之概念。分三節。介紹祭祀公業土地產生之原因背景及其分佈 。 第三章：祭祀公業土地之管理。分三節。分析祭祀公業土地之管理現況、探討影響官 理因素及管理問題。 第四章：祭祀公業土地之登記。分四節。探討當前之登記實務及有關規定。 第五章：祭祀公業土地之利用。分三節。分析祭祀公業土地之利用現況、探討影響利 用之因素及利用問題。 第六章：解決祭祀公業土地管理利用問題之對象。分三節。探討問題癥結，尋求解決 對象。 第七章：結論與建議。

台灣現存之祭祀公業年代均已久遠，然因歷史、政策及社會變遷等因素，導致多數祭祀公業日益沒落，並衍生地籍管理困難、土地利用無效率、派下員間糾紛不絕等諸多問題。本研究則針對祭祀公業管理人侵占公業款項、盜賣土地、怠職等不正行為，以及祭祀公業之運作與財產利用上之無效率現象，從代理理論及反共用地悲劇治理之角度予以探討。 透過相關文獻分析及深度訪談之結果，得知祭祀公業在沒有監督與激勵管理人機制之下，管理人有偷懶或自利之動機，進而影響祭祀公業之正常運作，甚至損害祭祀公業之財產；祭祀公業因其財產之公共同有特性，以及政府於行政管理上之困難，形成「反共用地之悲劇」，而民國97年施行之祭祀公業條例，雖限期祭祀公業辦理申報，簡化內部議決門檻，降低其決策成本，惟該條例亦改變派下權之認定資格，申報所需成本仍未減少，使該條例解決既有問題之成效有限。是以，為健全祭祀公業與祭祀公業法人內部之經營運作，以及政府之行政管理，祭祀公業應建立管理人的監督機制，給予其剩餘索取權；行政機關則應調整其政策方向及簡化程序，提供調解與諮詢服務，並限縮派下權之取得資格，避免加深反共用地悲劇。

摘要 「祭祀公業」乃基於傳統習慣所形成擁有特殊性之「共有」，係以祭祀祖先為目的所設立之獨立財產。本文研究乃以祭祀公業條例第五十條規範過去所設立祭祀公業法人與現行民法成立之財團法人（宗祠財團法人）其設立目的及宗旨是否相同，又本條例針對過去設立之祭祀公業法人格之取得及未取得法人格時土地權屬應如何處理，及其條例規定衍生派下現員權屬爭議、及男女平權繼承是否妥當，予以分析祭祀公業權屬爭議問題。試圖從慎終追遠及延續傳統宗族舊慣的角度，以分析祭祀公業之權屬結構，盼能指出台灣從過去到現在實施清理祭祀公業政策之盲點，俾利政府實施祭祀公業清理制度的處理原則及法令修訂時的參考。 本文第二章有關祭祀公業及其相關規定之探討：就祭祀公業緣起、意義、制度沿革、派下的權利與義務及權屬爭議之解釋、判決、判例、規定加以彙整，並以祭祀公業之法律性質、派下員申報及登記、廢止解散等權屬問題之予以論述；第三章祭祀公業主體性問題之探討，首先是應探究祭祀公業共有法人所有之差異性；其次過去設立之祭祀公業法人格土地權屬之分析，另規範過去所設立祭祀公業財團法人（宗祠財團法人）之爭議問題；第四章以派下現員之清理、派下權與房份配置及祭祀公業之解散，並深入分析祭祀公業權屬爭議問題。 第五章結論與建議：第一、祭祀公業取得派下全員證明書後，依據私法自治原則及法律本質決定其權屬關係為「祭祀公業法人」，以符合下列祭祀公業原設立之宗旨。第二、祭祀公業依過去法令所設立宗祠財團法人，應准其辦理更名登記為祭祀公業法人，以符合祭祀公業之法律本質、設立宗旨及其主體性。第三、派下員之繼受取得應依設立時章程（鬮書）之約定；未約定時，則依宗祧繼承男子繼承為原則，女子繼承為例外。現存之祭祀公業，既係日據時期所設立，自應適用設立當時之繼承習慣。若為解決男女平權繼承的問題，而恣意以現代民法所規定之男女平權繼承概念予以清理，將導致產權複雜化及違背台灣先民設立祭祀公業慎終追遠之宗旨。第四、祭祀公業解散清算分配賸餘財產時應依設立時章程（鬮書）之約定；未約定時，則依舊慣以房份為原則，均分（推定均等）為例外。最後提出後續研究建議，首先，祭祀公業清理被編定公共設施用地者之財產權保障問題；再者，祭祀公業之資產委由「公益信託」管理之可行性；暨派下權之繼受制度如何定位以符合我國舊慣等，這些議題都值得深入研究。而本文期盼祭祀公業清理制度之實施，能明確界定派下員之權屬關係，以落實財產權之保障。 關鍵字：祭祀公業、法人、宗祠財團法人、男女平權繼承、鬮書 / Abstract “Ancestral estate” is a special, independent property of “joint ownership” formed by tradition and custom, whose purpose is to worship clan ancestors. This study intends to research the similarity of the purpose and objective for establishing the ancestral estate juridical person, governed by Article 50 of the “Statue Governing the Ancestral Estate” and the foundation (Ancestral Shrine Foundation), governed by the Civil Code. By focusing on the following issues: (a) Land ownership before and after acquiring corporate personality of ancestral estate; (b) Authority controversy between clan members; and (c) The appropriateness of inheritance equality between men and women, this study tries to analyze the authority structure of ancestral estate from the perspectives of “due sacrifice for the ancestor” and continuation of traditional custom of clan ancestor worshiping. The purpose of this study is to pinpoint the blind spot existing in the past and current governmental policy concerning ancestral estate so that the government may find useful reference in future implementation of relevant systems and enactment of regulations. Chapter two discusses the nature of ancestral estate and its related regulations: the origin, meaning, historic system timeline, rights and obligation of clan members, and the compilation of controversial interpretations, judgments, precedents, and regulation. Further discussion will also be given on the legal nature, reporting of clan member, and the authorities regarding the revocation and dissolution of organization. Chapter three discusses the subject matters of ancestral estate. Firstly, the difference between the juridical persons of ancestral estate is discussed. Secondly, analyze the land ownership of ancestral estate and regulate the issues existing in the ancestral estate foundation (Ancestral Shrine Foundation). Chapter four deals with the sorting out of clan members, share allocation of property ownership, dissolution of ancestral estate, and an in-depth analysis will also be given on the authority controversies. Conclusion and suggestion will be provided in Chapter five: (1) After acquiring staff certificate of ancestral estate, the ancestral estate shall be deemed as a “ancestral estate juridical person” in accordance with the principle of autonomy and legal nature of private law, to meet the following establishing objectives; (2) The ancestral shrine foundation established in accordance with past regulations shall be allowed to change name and registered as ancestral estate juridical person to meet the legal nature, establishing objective and objectivity; and (3) The inheritance acquisition of clan members shall abide by the terms and conditions set forth in the articles (book of property inheritance); in the event of no agreement is made, the principle of male inheritance in accordance with clan pedigree shall govern, with female inheritance as exception. The existing ancestral estate was first established in the Japanese occupation period, which was applicable to the inheritance practices of the time. If, in order to solve the inheritance equality problem between both sexes, the competent authority tries to sort out in an arbitrary way the current issue with the concept of modern Civil Code, it is bound to cause complexity and in violation to the objective of due offerings set forth by Taiwanese ancestors; (4) The ancestral estate shall set up articles (book of property inheritance) governing its dissolution, liquidation, allocation of residual property; if no agreement is made, it shall be based on pedigree as principle, with even distribution (assumed even) as exception. Finally, suggestions will be provided for subsequent studies concerning: Property protection regarding public facilities designated for the sorting out of ancestral estate; The feasibility of “public trust” management of the assets of ancestral estate; and how to position the system of inheritance acquisition in order to meet the national custom and traditional practices. The main purpose of this study is to realize the protection of property by giving a clearly defined authority of clan members through the implementation of sorting out system of ancestral estate. Keywords：Ancestral estate；Juridical person； Ancestral Shrine Foundation ； Equal inheritance of both sexes； book of property inheritance

本文以「嘗會」為研究的主題，並於前面加上「客家」一詞，是希望突顯以客家為主題的論述與特性，藉此來瞭解客家人的文化特徵，故從歷史脈絡看來，研究地區若非屬早期客家人開墾的地方，則未列入研究場域，冀望透過這樣的研究思維，並運用比較研究觀點，呈現出西湖溪流域內客家嘗會之一般與核心的文化特徵。 研究動機除了對客家嘗會的核心文化特徵加以探討外，亦綜合前人對中國傳統社會宗族理論成果之探討，運用於本文之研究；期望透過宗族相關理論的應用，並藉由西湖溪流域嘗會的族產統計分析，以達成研究目的，包含探討的早期宗族分布的情況、有哪些宗族對流域拓墾較具代表性、嘗會與宗族發展甚或對聚落發展的關聯性等；再以西湖溪流域客家嘗會為核心的觀察，探析國家政策與社會變遷對嘗會的挑戰。研究方法上，則採用文獻分析、參與觀察以及深度訪談。在資料處理方面，則運用2009年政府地政機關有關嘗會族產的公務登記資料為基礎，進而以統計方法加以整理、歸納、分析，並與相關文獻分析結果做比較與對話，以進一步提升研究資料分析結果之信度與效度。 研究結果發現客家嘗會可探析客家人早期來台拓墾的宗族發展的脈絡與聚落發展的關聯性，亦可分析出流域內前五大姓氏宗族分別依序為賴、李、彭、劉、邱，並可探討嘗會於客家地方社會發展的意義與特質；而「嘗」所展現的形式上與實質上的意涵，代表著客家人獨特的文化特徵，惟這些客家文化的特殊性，不僅正面臨社會轉型與時代變遷的衝擊，亦面臨著從日治時期政府以來，國家政策前所未有的挑戰。 / This paper takes Hakka Ancestral Estate Associations（嘗會cang hui）as the subject of the study. As the term “cang hui” is used only by the Hakka ethnic group in both mainland China and Taiwan, this study is to explore the characteristics and Hakka people and its culture features. Therefore, in terms of historical context, the region for the research is limited only to Xihu River basin area where early Hakka immigrants settled. Through this kind of study and by comparing various research points of view about cang hui, this paper hopes to present the general and core cultural characteristics of Hakka Ancestral Estate Associations in Xihu River Basin. In addition to exploring the core cultural characteristics of Hakka Ancestral Estate Associations, the study also deals with and applies discussions and findings of previous theories on traditional Chinese society lineage, hoping that through the application of lineage related theory and the statistical analysis of the Hakka Ancestral Estate Associations in Xihu River Basin to attain the research purposes. The purposes are the situation of the early lineage distribution, lineages which are more representative of the development of Xihu River Basin, the relationship between the development of Hakka Ancestral Estate Associations and the development of the lineage, and the relevance of the development of settlement, etc. The Hakka Ancestral Estate Associations in Xihu River Basin is the core observation. In addition, this study discusses further the impact of government policy and social change on the Hakka Ancestral Estate Associations. In terms of research method, we use document analysis, participation in observation and in-depth interviews. About data processing, we use the official registration information of the property of Ancestral Estate Associations owned by the government's land office in 2009 and then adopt suitable statistical methods to sort, summarize, analyze and compare the result of related historical documents to enhance the reliability and validity of the research data analysis results. The study finds that Hakka Ancestral Estate Associations can explore the relationship between the historical context of lineage development and the development of settlements in the early history. We can also use it to find that family names of the top five lineages in the river basin are Lai, Li, Peng, Liu and Chiu. Besides, we can analyze the meaning and characteristics of Hakka Ancestral Estate Associations in Hakka society. While formal and realistic meaning of “Chang”(嘗) represents Hakka people’s unique cultural characteristics, this uniqueness is not only facing the impact of social transformation and the change of the times, but also facing unprecedented challenges by government policy since Japanese Reign.

台灣祭祀公業為民間祭祀團體係特殊民間傳統習慣所形成，其特殊性為「共有」型態，以祭祀祖先為目的所設立之獨立財產。其設置，淵源於中國大陸南宋「祭田」經先民為維護人民本身之生存之安全，勢必組織團體，藉以互助及自衛，依賴宗族組織逐漸形成台灣之特殊制度。本文研究是以祭祀公業條例第五十一條及相關第五十四條、第五十五條「代為標售」政府以公權力介入剝奪民間之祭祀公業財產，限定三年內申報清理，逾期申報由直轄市、縣(市)主管機關代為標售，此種化私產為公產(囑託登記為國有)剝奪人民財產權是否有違反憲法第十五條及第二十三條之必要性原則應予探討。又祭祀公業條例第五十九條第一項規定應以「祭祀公業法人為新設立之特殊性質法人，而非依民法成立社團法人或財團法人為新設立。」立法要求祭祀公業成立「祭祀公業法人」為權利義務主體具有人格化，管理重於清理，應予探討研究。 「祭祀公業」以頒布祭祀公業條例予以清理，在民政機關(單位)應予嚴格審查核發派下全員證明書，以利祭祀公業登記為「祭祀公業法人」或「個別所有」、「持分共有」或「均分」所有，以利管理。因此對祭祀公業之派下員清理，宜予慎重探討。其頒指出祭祀公業條例實施後問題所在，能對過去到現在清理祭祀公業之政策困難「盲點」於處理原則及法令修定時予以參考。 本論文共分五章其主要內容說明如下： 第一章 緒論：說明研究動機與目的，研究方法與範圍，研究內容與流程。第二章 祭祀公業法性質定為之探討：祭祀公業的涵義，就有關文獻，藉著祭祀公業定義、分類、沿革及法律本質之定位問題予論述，日治時期之定位及分析祭祀公業法律性質之定位與釐清學說與實務不同見解，針對祭祀公業法人之特殊性，具有「人格」為權利義務主體，期望祭祀公業條例實施後，有利於政府管理祭祀公業。 第三章 祭祀公業條例公佈實施前土地清理之探討：論述台灣光復初期地籍失實之原因，祭祀公業法制承接之改變，使法律本質定位在「習慣上法人」國民政府播遷來台影響，秉持大陸之見解認定祭祀公業為「公同共有」之性質，以致清理發生困難，政府放任祭祀公業不立法保護，法令闕如，以致祭祀公業纏訟爭財，政府對祭祀公業土地清理法令何在？雖然內政部於七十年四月三日頒布「祭祀公業土地清理要點」二十六點，積極清理，以便管理，隨後台灣省政府頒布「台灣省祭祀公業土地清理辦法」一十九條，因法律位階為法令，又缺少公權力，以致效果不彰，推原其故，詳述問題所在，以訂立新法為法律，而有土地清理相關規定問題，提出祭祀公業管理條例草案及地籍清理條例草案為立法解決祭祀公業土地清理問題。 第四章 祭祀公業條例公佈實施後土地清理之探討：祭祀公業條例公佈實施前所發生問題是否解決？困難問題未能解決，政府為解決立法授權行政主管機關，以公共利益為考慮，予以代為標售為徹底解決主體不明，權屬不清，無法藉司法途徑解決之祭祀公業，如此見解是否剝奪民間習慣形成之祭祀公業，以公益剝奪私益，有違反憲法第十五條及第二十三條人民財產權之保障，闡述祭祀公業法人登記之分析，祭祀公業第五十九條第一項所規定新設立祭祀公業已民法規定社團法人或財團法人為之。闡述祭祀公業法人為特別性質之法人，為祭祀公業條例公佈實施之特色，今新設立祭祀公業應以登記為祭祀公業法人為之，為正確；對於祭祀公業土地清理，應以民政機關核發派下全員證明書為地政機關登記之憑證，故祭祀公業在申請民政機關核發派下全員證明書審核時與以對其派下員清理。 第五章 結論與建議，一、結論：(一)祭祀公業派下員之清理，如何認定派下權，以杜絕糾紛，授權民政機關核發派下全員證明書協助祭祀公業派下權責任重大。期望未來修法時，在實體對派下權繼承取得或喪失及範圍作明確之規範。(二)祭祀公業法人登記之分析，將祭祀公業法人登記規範二十四項，予以歸納分析其程序及應附文件。於清理完畢，予以管理。祭祀公業條例第五十九條第一項新設立祭祀公業，依民法規定成立社團法人或財團法人。祭祀公業條例忽略法人化，特別規定特殊性質法人為權利義務主體，有別於社團法人或財團法人。因此本研究認為新設立祭祀公業應以成立登記祭祀公業法人為之，符合特殊性質法人說之立論。(三)逾期未申報清理，代為標售分析，政府(行政主管機關)為全面清理祭祀公業，竟然立法祭祀公業條例第五十一條及相關第五十四條、第五十五條規定，將土地二次標售，未完成標售者，囑託地政機關登記為「國有」，增加政府國有土地之資源。又於代為標售之價金及登記為國有之土地價金，期限十年，祭祀公業逾期未申請發給土地價金結算如有賸餘歸入「國庫」。此種土地政策公益大於私益，嚴重剝奪祭祀公業之財產，以公權力介入代為標售違反憲法第十五條及第二十三條之必要性原則及比例原則之違憲行為，剝奪人民之財產權，詳盡論述。二、建議：祭祀公業條例施行後，實務上之運作，對祭祀公業申報清理作業，仍有處分實務與法令盲點存在，建議將來為修法之參考：(一)祭祀公業條例第五條之修正為「一、……其繼承人應與該公業設立人或派下同姓且有共同分擔祭祀者，使符列為派下員。」(二)祭祀公業條例第五十條第一項：「……應於三年內依下列方式之一處理其土地及建物」之「之一」兩字應予刪除。(三)祭祀公業條例第五十條第三項建議修正。(四)祭祀公業條例第五十一條，直轄市、縣(市)主管機關代為標售之規定，有違背憲法第十五條及第二十五條對財產權保障及比例原則，於修法時建議刪除或修改條文。(五)祭祀公業條例第十二條欠缺移請直轄市、縣(市)政府調處機制，建議修法時予以增加，以利清理工作之運作。 / Abstract Worship guilds in Taiwan are civil worship associations formed due to special tradition and custom. Its unique characteristic is the “co-ownership” of the independent properties set up for worshiping ancestors. It originated from the “sacrificial field” in the Southern Song Dynasty. Due to the need of defending their safety and survival, ancient people organized themselves to help each other and ensure self-defense. Clan organizations have been evolved and developed into a system unique to Taiwan. This research discusses whether the government’s conversion of private properties into state-owned properties (inform the registration of properties as state-owned) and deprivation of people’s right to property are in violation of Articles 15 and 23 of the Constitution, that is, the government deprives properties owned by civil worship guilds by exercising its public powers to require them to declare and clear their properties for ancestor worship within three years, and in the event that a worship guild fails to make the required declaration, the municipal city, county (city) government will publicly auction the properties in question on behalf of the worship guild according to Articles 51 and 54 as well as the “Public auction on behalf of worship guild “ stipulated in Article 55 of the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds. In addition, Paragraph 1 of Article 59 of the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds stipulates that “a worship guild constituted as a juristic person is a new form of juristic person with unique characteristics which differs from an association constituted as a juristic person or a foundation constituted as a juristic person as per the Civil Code.” The legislation requires a worship guild to form a “worship guild constituted as a juristic person” which has legal personality capable of exercising rights and bearing responsibilities. The fact that management takes precedence over clearance should be discussed and researched. The promulgation of the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds is to regulate “worship guilds.” Civil affairs authorities strictly review and issue the full membership (including the founding members and, if any, their successors) certificate of a worship guild to allow it being registered as a “worship guild constituted as a juristic person”, “individual ownership”, “co-ownership of respective shares” or “co-ownership of equal shares” for the purpose of management. As a result, it is important to undertake sensible discussions on the listing of worship guilds’ membership. This research is intended to point out problems arising from the implementation of the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds and the policy “blind spots” associated with the regulation of worship guilds from the very beginning until now which are subsequently served as references for the principles of handling and future amendment to the applicable laws and regulations. This research is divided into five chapters and their key contents are listed below: Chapter one is the introduction which explains the research motive and objective, research methods and scope as well as research contents and procedures. Chapter Two discusses the positioning of worship guilds’ legal nature. In terms of the context of worship guilds, the definition, categorization, history and the positioning of the legal nature of worship guilds are expounded according to relevant literatures. Their positioning in the era under the Japanese colonial rule is also explored. The legal nature of worship guilds is analyzed and the clarification of the different interpretations between academic theories and practical experiences is made. Regarding the uniqueness of worship guilds as juristic persons, their acquisition of “personality” capable of exercising rights and bearing responsibilities after the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds took effect will hopefully facilitate the government’s management of worship guilds. Chapter Three concentrates on land clearance before the promulgation and implementation of the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds which discusses the reasons behind the incorrect cadasters immediately after the end of the Japanese occupation and the change of the legal system governing worship guilds. Worship guilds which had originally been regarded as “customary juristic persons” in their legal nature were deemed as “co-ownership in common” under the Mainland concept by the Nationalist government after its retreat to Taiwan. This led to great difficulties to regulate. The government’s failure to enact applicable laws to protect the interest of worship guilds created a legislative vacuum, causing numerous litigations for properties by worship guilds. Where the land clearance legislations as far as worship guilds are concerned? Although the Ministry of the Interior promulgated the “Arrangement Regulations for Worship Assets” with 26 regulations on April 3, 1981 to actively undertake clearance to facilitate management, followed by the “Regulations Governing Land Clearance by Worship Guilds of Taiwan Province” composed of 19 articles which were promulgated by the Taiwan Provincial Government, these points and regulations were inferior in their legal status and lacked enforcement powers, leading to ineffective and unsatisfactory results. The causes for their failure and problems needed to be addressed by the enactment of a new legislation. Accordingly, drafts of both the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds and the Statutes Governing Cadaster Clearance were proposed to resolve issues concerning land clearance by worship guilds. Chapter Four discusses land clearance after the implementation of the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds. Attentions are drawn to whether the problems which had occurred before the effectiveness of the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds are resolved? In order to deal with the un-resolved problems, the government has enacted the law to authorize the competent authority, in consideration of public interest, to undertake public auctions on behalf of worship guilds aimed at completely resolving issues surrounding ownership and rights or cases of worship guilds which cannot be resolved by the judicial system. Whether this idea exploits worship guilds which were formed by way of civil custom, amounts to the deprivation of private interest by public interest, and violates the constitutional guarantee of people’s rights to property as per Articles 15 and 23 of the Constitution requires further discussions. The registration of worship guilds constituted as juristic persons is analyzed as a newly established worship guild is required to be established as an association constituted as a juristic person or a foundation constituted as a juristic person as per the Civil Code under Paragraph 1 of Article 59 of the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds. It is also emphasized that worship guilds constituted as juristic persons are unique juristic persons which is a feature of the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds. It is a correct policy to require any newly established worship guild to be registered as a worship guild constituted as a juristic person. With respect of land clearance by worship guilds, civil affairs authorities should issue full membership certificates as a reference for land registration authorities to undertake land registration. Therefore, worship guilds can ascertain their full membership when applying to civil affairs authorities for membership certificates. Chapter Five is conclusions and suggestions. I. Conclusions: (1) Regarding the ascertaining of membership of worship guilds, it is important to ascertain the right of the membership to prevent future disputes. Civil affair authorities’ power to issue full membership certificates bears great responsibilities in assisting the establishment of the right of the membership of worship guilds. It is hoped that future amendment will be made to the acquisition by succession, loss and scope of the right of the membership. (2) In respect of the analysis of the registration of worship guilds constituted as juristic persons, the procedures and attached documents required by the 24 regulations governing the registration of worship guilds constituted as juristic persons should be analyzed. After the analysis is done, the procedures and attached documents should be managed accordingly. According to Paragraph 1 of Article 59 of the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds, a newly established worship guild is required to be established as an association constituted as a juristic person or a foundation constituted as a juristic person in accordance with the Civil Code. The Statutes Governing Worship Guilds ignores legal personalization and specially provides that worship guilds are a special form of juristic persons which are different from associations or foundations constituted as juristic persons. Due to this, this research concludes that a newly established worship guild should be registered as a worship guild constituted as a juristic person in order to fit in its unique legal personality. (3) The failure to declare and clear worship properties leads to the government’s public auctions on behalf of worship guilds. In order to fully regulate worship guilds, the government (the competent authority) has nevertheless enacted Articles 51, 54 and 55 of the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds to publicly auction the lands for the second time. The competent authority then informed the land registration authority to register those lands which had not been successfully sold in auctions as “state-owned” properties to increase the state-owned land resources. Moreover, the limitation period for applying for the auction price and the land value of registered state-owned land is ten years, and if no attempt has been made to make the application for the land price within the statutory limitation, the remaining amount after final calculation will be given to the “Treasury.” This type of land policy accords more emphasis on public interest than private interest, seriously depriving properties owned by worship guilds. To publicly auction properties on behalf of worship guilds by exercising the public powers violates the principle of necessity as set out in Article 15 of the Constitution and the principle of proportionality as set out in Article 23 of the Constitution. This is deprivation of people’s right to property which is detailed in this research. II. Suggestions: there are still regulatory blind spots in practice with respect to the declaration and clearance procedures of worship guilds after the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds took effect. The following suggestions are made as references for future amendment to the Statutes: (1) Suggested amendment to Article 5 of the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds, “1. … the successor shall be listed as a member of the worship guild only if he or she shares the duty of ancestor worship with a founding member of the guild or a member of the same clan.” (2) Paragraph 1 of Article 50 of the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds provides “…shall handle the land and building as per one of the following methods within three years.” The wording “one of the following” should be deleted. (3) It is suggested that Paragraph 3 of Article 50 of the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds should be amended. (4) The competent authority of the municipal city, county (city) government should undertake public auctions on behalf of worship guilds as set out in Article 51 of the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds violates the protection of property rights and the principle of proportionality guaranteed by Articles 15 and 25 of the Constitution respectively. It is suggested that the article should be deleted or amended. (5) Article 12 of the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds fails to include the mediation mechanism by way of transferring the case to the municipal city, county (city) government for mediation. It is suggested that such mechanism should be incorporated in order to facilitate the clearance.