In June 2026, the Civil Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of Taiwan issued a unified opinion providing essential practical guidance regarding claims for the return of unjust enrichment in cases where a building occupies land without legal title (Ruling No. 932 of the 2022 Tai-Shang-Da-Zi). 

【Background】Is the Lessee of an Unauthorized Building Considered an “Occupant” of the Land? 

In cases where a building occupies someone else’s land without legal title, and the building owner leases the property to a third party, judicial opinions were historically divided on whether the landowner could claim unjust enrichment (equivalent to land rent) from the lessee (the actual occupant). 

The Grand Chamber ruled that the person who actually uses a building occupies not only the building itself but also exercises “factual control and management over the underlying land” to the exclusion of others. Consequently, such actual users are, in principle, deemed occupants of the land. 

【Standards of Recognition】The Distinction Between “Good Faith” and “Bad Faith” 

To maintain the transactional safety of the rental market, the Grand Chamber established clear boundaries based on the tenant’s subjective knowledge: 

1. Good-Faith Occupants (Unknowing Parties):

Pursuant to Article 952 of the Civil Code, Lessees are under no legal obligation to verify whether the building has the proper legal title to occupy the land. They are presumed to act in “good faith” and are not obligated to return the benefits of land use to the landowner. 

2. Bad-Faith Occupants (Knowing Parties):

If a lessee uses the property fully aware that the building lacks legal title to the land, they must return the benefits of land use (equivalent to rent) to the landowner under the provisions of unjust enrichment. 

【Practical Implications】 

This landmark ruling successfully balances the protection of property rights with transactional security. Going forward, landowners seeking remedies against building occupants must strategically prove the occupant’s “bad faith,” making subjective knowledge the central battleground in future litigation.