房地分离：宅基地流转之钥——以宅基地使用权继承之困局为切入点

尽管具有一定保障性，但宅基地制度的首要目标在于经济管理，其表面上强调“户有所居”，实际是“户有定居”。宅基地上使用权所承载的管理性与农民自费建造农房所有权的私权性，存在内在的矛盾，不应适用房地一体规则，因为后者遵循着传统民法应对市场交易的基本逻辑。自然资源部所发布的文件明确了宅基地使用权可以由城镇居民继承，内核乃是基于房地一体，以房屋所有权的可继承带动宅基地使用权的可继承，颇为冒进。宅基地上所有权与房屋使用权应当分离，这将为宅基地的流转与乡村振兴提供新的契机：农房的自由流转加上宅基地使用权的农民保有，将最大限度地在现有阶段实现市场与制度的有机契合；对于取得农房的所有权人，在房地分离之下，可以借助对宅基地使用权的法定租赁来设计合理的权利结构。

"Separation of House and Land": The Key to Homestead Transfer,Taking the Dilemma of "Inheritance of Homestead" as the Starting Point

In the right group of homestead, which right of rights can be transferred? There are a lot of arguments over this question in both academic and practical areas. It seems that the question of the inheritance of the ownership of rural house buildings on the homestead and the right to use them is imminent, although the question of market circulation (such as sale and mortgage) can still be suspended. Some scholars insist that the right to the use of homestead cannot be inherited due to its nature of social security and social welfare. But it is not true. This paper reflects and criticizes this cliche, and tries to point out that the essence of the homestead system is not based on social security, but on the economic management in the planned economy. The focus of homestead is not “every household has a residence”, but “households will have solid residences”. By determining the residence of farmers, it maintains the urban-rural dual system. Whether to restrict or to liberalize the circulation of the right of homestead does not depend on the nature of social security of the rule of homestead system.In this regard, the Ministry of Natural Resources issued a document to clarify that the ownership of rural houses on the homestead can be inherited, and determine that the use right to rural houses can be inherited by urban residents. The principle of this doctrine is the rule of integration of real estate and land. However, the integration of real estate and land aims at urban houses, and the purpose is to clarify the integrated transfer of land use right and the ownership of house. There is no such context in the homestead problem, and the law should not rashly accept the integration of real estate and land as the basic logic of homestead. In the context of rural revitalization, the development of the homestead system should be emphasized on the actual use of homestead. Therefore, taking inheritance as the starting-point to open the circulation, although taking into account custom and tradition, it is still relatively extensive and less precise: the key is to estimate whether the use of homestead is conducive to the development of collective economy and the construction of agricultural countryside, and whether the use value of homestead as land is really brought into play.For the above reasons, the author believes the ownership of rural houses and the right to the use of the homestead should be separated at the level of right. The ownership of rural houses comes from the construction of farmers at their own expense, which should be attributed to property rights, while as a management system, the right to the use of the homestead emphasizes on economic controls. Although the right to the use of the homestead is included in the usufructuary right in the civil code, it does not mean that it equals to the general property. Therefore, the two should be seen and treated completely differently. In the current situation, under the guiding ideology of “major reform must be based on the law”, it has institutional legitimacy and economic rationality to separate the ownership of rural houses on homestead from the right to the use of the homestead. In the institutional structure of house land separation, the ownership of rural houses is an inheritable property right, while the right to the use of the homestead restitutes to collective economic organizations as an “vacuum” right, and applies to the model of legal lease. The person who obtains the ownership of rural houses takes the legal lease right of homestead use right as the right basis, which can not only ensure that the use right of homestead is retained in the hands of collective economic organizations, but also realize the separation of three rights of homestead in a better way. In practice, when making a distinction, it should not address to the distinction of “inheritance” or “transaction”, but should focus on “house” and “right to use”, and ensure that collective economic organizations hold the right to use. In this way, the transaction market of rural houses (including rental and transaction) can be liberalized, while the basic instruction of the rule of homestead can be kept.