The reference to a statute of limitation stipulated in Article 125 of the Civil Code, within which an estate owner may claim the right to repossession, is inapplicable to registered estate owners.

　　　 Articles 769 and 770 of the Civil Code are solely concerned with an adverse possessor's application for title to an unregistered estate and have no application to registered estates. It follows that the statute of limitation, after which an adverse possessor may claim title by possession, does not apply to registered estates. In accordance with the foregoing, there is no scope for the application of a statute of limitation in Article 125 of the Civil Code on the registered estate owner's right to repossession. Article 758 of the Civil Code prescribes: "title to real property which has been acquired, encumbered, lost, or altered through the operation of law is ineffective unless it is registered." According to Article 43 of the Land Act, "registration under this Act gives rise to a good title against the world." The allowance to the registered owner of a right of repossession would lead to termination of the right due to lapse of the statute of limitation, making the registration system redundant. It would also lead to the unfair result of the registered owner having to bear all the tax and other burdens in relation to the land, despite losing the right to repossession due to lapse of the statute of limitation. This is because the owner, being on the land registry, must bear all the tax and other land-related burdens under the law, and the possessor cannot claim title by adverse possession upon the expiration of the statute of limitation. This Yuan's Interpretation Yuan-tze No.1833 seeks to clarify the right to repossession of unregistered estate owners. It should be added that, as to a registered estate owner's right to repossession, there is no scope for the application of the Civil Code Article 125 statute of limitation.