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.