While each co-owner is entitled to demand at any time the partition of common property under the Civil Code, Article 823, Paragraph 1, the first sentence, the proviso thereto makes it inapplicable where partition is impossible on account of the purpose for which the property is used. The legislative purpose of the proviso is to avoid unnecessary controversies and to promote the economic efficacy of the common property. The common area of a building under divided ownership is indispensable for all divisional owners to make use of and is by nature a property that cannot be partitioned on account of the purpose for which it is used. The Ministry of Interior directive (61) Tai-Nei-Ti-Tze No. 491660 dated November 7, 1972, whereby areas such as a fire escape, vehicle passageway, and frontage are deemed to be a part of the building and may not be partitioned for the purpose of recordation, is consistent with the provision and is not in conflict with the Constitution.

　　　 Under the Civil Code, Article 799, the first sentence, where a building is divided up among several persons so that each of them owns a part of it, the common area of the building and its accessories are presumed to be co-owned by all owners. The Code further provides in Article 823, Paragraph 1, the first sentence, that each co-owner is entitled to demand at any time the partition of the common property; however, the proviso thereto makes it inapplicable where partition is impossible on account of the purpose for which the property is used. The legislative purpose of the proviso is to avoid unnecessary controversies and to promote the economic efficacy of the common property. The common area of a building under divided ownership is indispensable for all divisional owners to make use of and is by nature a property that cannot be partitioned on account of the purpose for which it is used. The Land Recording Regulations, Article 72, Subparagraphs 2 and 3, prescribing that ownership of the common area of a building under divided ownership must be transferred to the same person to whom ownership of the building under divided ownership is transferred and shall not be partitioned, is designed for the same purpose. The Ministry of Interior directive (61) Tai-Nei-Ti-Tze No. 491660 dated November 7, 1972, whereby areas such as a fire escape, vehicle passageway, and frontage are deemed to be a part of the building and may not be partitioned for the purpose of recordation, is consistent with the above purpose and is not in conflict with Articles 15 and 23 of the Constitution.

　　　 Incidentally, the petitioner’s application in this case for unified interpretation does not meet the requirements of Article 7, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2, of the Constitutional Interpretation Procedure Act and must therefore be denied.