Relevant Legal Provisions

Article 767, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Code： The owner may request the return of property from a person who occupies or seizes it without authority. The owner may request the removal of anything that interferes with their ownership. The owner may also request measures to prevent any interference with their ownership.

Article 179 of the Civil Code：If a person benefits without legal grounds, causing damage to another person, they must return the benefit. This applies even if there was a legal reason initially, but it no longer exists.

Facts and Reasons

The appellee has long occupied a state-owned land in Taitung County and planted crops on it. The appellant (our client) believes, based on Article 767, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Code, that the appellee should clear the items from the disputed land and return it. The appellant also requests that the appellee pay for the unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent until the land is returned.

Judgment

1. The appellee must remove the items from the disputed land and return the land: It was found that the disputed land is an indigenous reserve managed by the appellant, and by law, only indigenous people can rent, use, or acquire ownership. However, the appellee does not have indigenous status and has not presented any legitimate claim to occupy the land. Therefore, the appellee is illegally occupying the disputed land. The appellant's request to have the items cleared and the land returned is justified and should be granted.

2. The appellee must pay unjust enrichment to the appellant: Using someone else's land without a legitimate claim and benefiting from it in the form of rent is generally considered unjust. According to the law of unjust enrichment, the benefit must be returned to the landowner. It was found that the appellee has been occupying the disputed land without rights since 1986. Therefore, the appellant has the right to request the return of the unjust enrichment equivalent to rent.

(Note: To protect the client's interests, certain case details and judgment images have been redacted and modified. For a full review of the case, please refer to the Judicial Yuan's judgment database)

Attorneys：Vincent Huang、Kevin Yu