To tear down or not to tear down?

In civil law countries, unlike in common law jurisdictions, boundary encroachment and adverse possession are different issues, ² as many civil codes contain separate doctrines for them. In 2009, the Taiwan Civil Code, including its stipulations for boundary encroachment (Articles 796, 796–1, and 796–2), was amended. Specifically, the current doctrines are as follows: the entitlement of the neighbor (whose land is trespassed) is generally protected by “the property rule” ³ when the encroachment is intentional or grossly negligent. The entitlement, however, is only protected by “the liability rule” ⁴ if the neighbor fails to promptly notify the negligent trespasser of her disapproval upon being aware of the trespass. And under the liability rule, the neighbor can either request that the encroacher purchase “the part of the trespassed land” and “the odd lot caused by the trespass” at a “reasonable price,” or request payment for her losses. Pursuant to the newly enacted Article 796–1, if the trespass is unintentional, the court, after taking into account the public interests and the interests of the two parties, may switch from the property rule (removal) to the liability rule (preservation). The boundary encroachment doctrines apply to residential buildings and apply mutatis mutandis to other types of construction that are “similarly valuable” (Article 796–2).