The Supreme Court rendered the 103-Tai-Jien-Shang-16 Civil Decision of August 8, 2014 (hereinafter, the "Decision"), holding that the cadastral resurveys are technical land survey services provided by land administration offices ex officio to fully and accurately reflect the scope of the people's original land ownership in the cadastral maps through cadastral inventory and surveys and do not have any effect of increasing or decreasing the private rights of the people.
According to the facts underlying the Decision, Individual A asserted that the area of his land was consistent with that shown in the land area calculation table for the resurvey conducted by the Land Survey Group of the Land Administration Department of Taipei City Government according to the resurvey map created by the Shihlin Land Administration Office in 1987. However, when the Land Survey Group created digital maps in 1995, the areas of the land owned by Individual A and its adjacent lands were reduced and the land area reduction still persisted after application was filed for land boundary verification in 1997. When Individual B, the owner of the adjacent lands, applied for resurvey in 2009, the Shihlin Land Office still conducted the resurvey based on the digital map. As a result, Individual A further requested to confirm the land boundary of the parties.
It was first indicated in the Decision that the nature of lawsuit on property boundaries is an action of alteration. Therefore, the court may determine the property boundary of the parties based on the outcome of investigation without being constrained by the assertions of the parties. Therefore, the original decision in which Individual A's request was rejected simply on the ground that the boundary in the resurvey map created by the Shihlin Land Office in 1987 was not the correct boundary between the lands of the parties was found to be questionable in this Decision.
In addition, it was pointed out that the cadastral resurveys under Article 46-1 through Article 46-3 of the Land Law are technical land survey services provided by land administration offices ex officio to fully and accurately reflect the original scope of land ownership of the people in the cadastral maps through cadastral inventory and surveys and do not have any effect of increasing or reducing the private rights of the people. Therefore, even though the owners of adjacent lands have reached agreement during negotiations for cadastral resurvey, still cadastral maps may not be actually consistent with the reality if no on-site survey is conducted. Therefore, land owners may still seek remedies in lawsuits to resolve disputes over land boundaries. According to the Decision, whether the boundary line between Individual A's land and its adjacent land, which was found to be based on the digital map in 1995 in the original trial court decision, is the boundary line between the lands of both parties requires further clarification. Therefore, the original trial court decision was reversed.