宅基地流转的居住权路径检视及其入市法律规制  

Review of the transfer of homestead by residence right and the legal regulation of homestead transaction

作　　者：袁文全[1,2] 李贵生 YUAN Wenquan;LI Guisheng(School of Law,Chongqing University,Chongqing 400044,P.R.China;Institute for Sustainable Development,Chongqing University,Chongqing 400044,P.R.China)

机构地区：[1]重庆大学法学院,重庆400044 [2]重庆大学可持续发展研究院,重庆400044

出　　处：《重庆大学学报(社会科学版)》2025年第1期202-216,共15页Journal of Chongqing University(Social Science Edition)

基　　金：国家社会科学基金项目“机构养老发展的法治保障研究”(22BFX120);中央高校基本科研业务费资助项目NO.2024CDJSKPT11;重庆市研究生科研创新项目“宅基地入市的居住权路径与权利转化模式研究”(CYS23015)。

摘　　要：投资性居住权制度的引入曾是《中华人民共和国民法典》(以下简称《民法典》)物权编制定过程中讨论的热点议题之一,历次审议稿的意见征求中效仿德国允许居住权自由转让的观点虽在当时罕有反对之声,但最终却与《民法典》第369条中“居住权不得转让”的规定截然相反,从侧面表明立法者认为比较法上的投资性居住权在根本上不符合我国居住权制度的设立初衷与社会发展需求。在“适度放活”改革背景下宅基地流转入市模式的实践探索中,将宅基地使用权塑造为纯粹用益物权的观点在理论界占据主流地位,扩张宅基地用途与使用权能的农村住宅居住权路径同样引发学界关注,依托“房地一体”处分规则借助投资性居住权的自由转让实现宅基地流转受到部分学者的认可与推崇。然而通过分析后发现,农村住宅投资性居住权与《民法典》规定的居住权在功能上存在差异,与禁止转让的限制存在冲突,不具有突破现有用途管制进而实现宅基地“适度放活”的可能,对促进宅基地流转的实践价值甚微。未来的宅基地流转模式选择,放弃以居住权路径为代表的权利扩充模式应是理性之举。作为权利扩充模式的代替,从本土实践中产生的宅基地转化模式明显是推动宅基地流转更为合理的制度出路。将宅基地使用权转变为集体经营性建设用地使用权的流转方式不仅契合宅基地“适度放活”与现有法律权利体系,也与我国土地权利演进的历史逻辑一脉相承,展示出推动土地要素流动进而推进国内统一大市场与城乡融合发展的社会效应,已经完成由政策文件、试点经验向地方性法规的转变。为切实完成“适度放活宅基地使用权”的政策目标,需要对当前试点地区中新兴的宅基地权利转化模式进行总结,在法律层面形成制度规范,以维护村集体所有权人地位、确保农The introduction of investment based residence right system was once one of the hot topics discussed in the process of formulating the property rights section of the Civil Code of China.Although there was little opposition to the view of allowing the free transfer of the right of residence in the solicitation of opinions,Article 369 of the Civil Code stipulates that the right of residence shall not be transferred,which shows that legislators believe that the investment based right of residence in comparative law is fundamentally inconsistent with the original intention of the establishment of the residence right system and the needs of social development in China.In the context of the moderate release of homestead reform,and in the practical exploration of the transfer of homestead,the mainstream view in the theoretical field is to shape the right to use homestead as a pure usufructuary right.The path of rural residence right which expands the use and usage rights of homestead has also attracted academic attention.Relying on the integration of real estate and land disposal rules and the free transfer of investment residential rights to achieve the transfer of homestead has been recognized and praised by some scholars.However,analysis has found that there are functional differences between the investment oriented residential rights in rural housing and the residential rights stipulated in the Civil Code,which conflict with the restrictions on transfer and do not have the possibility of breaking through the existing use control to achieve moderate release of homestead,and have little practical value in promoting the transfer of homestead.Abandoning the right expansion model represented by the residential right path will be a rational choice for the future homestead transfer model.As an alternative,the conversion model of homestead generated from local practices is more reasonable.Transforming the right to use homestead into the right to use collectively operated construction land not only conforms to the legal syst

关 键 词：国土空间规划 宅基地使用权 投资性居住权 宅基地流转 权利转化 

分 类 号：D912.3[政治法律—法学]