盱衡現行共有物管理之規定，不難體察積極調控契約內容之家父主義的氛圍。首先，民法第799條之1提示了審視規約內容是否按其情形顯失公平的例示判準，可導引區分所有人於制訂與決議規約內容時，得一併審酌該例示因素，降低未來發生規約效力爭執的可能性，深具家父主義的規範前導特性。其次，為避免多數決之濫用，保障全體共有人之權益，民法第820條第2項規定法院得應不同意共有人之聲請，為全體共有人調整管理方法，從事形成契約的司法決定，更是見證了家父主義的契約形成功能，足堪重視。此外，本文認為，法院於判斷系爭管理決定或規約內容是否顯失公平之際，可借鏡John Rawls正義論中關於「差異原則」的啟發，將自己置身於最不利者的角度去設想，比較系爭管理決議的前後結果，是否使得該不同意管理方法之共有人或區分所有人處於最不利者之地位獲得改善，據以決定是否顯失公平。最後，本文從憲法上人民之生存權、生命權與居住權保障之視角出發，提供了判斷住宅建物是否具備構造上之獨立性、與使用上之獨立性的準繩。

The purpose of this article, which is divided into six parts, is to analyze the autonomy and its limit in management of a thing held in Co-ownership. Following an introduction relating to make panorama of the Amendment concerning Rights In Rem on January 23, 2009, Part II explores the principle of one accord between plural parties and its incontinent, while modifying a method of separate- management contract of a co-ownership property. Part III inquires into two manifestations of Interventionism in legislative policy. In the one hand, Article 799-1 illustrates several criteria by which an unfair management clause is judged. In the other hand, Article 820 provides the court with a power to change the method of management contract of a co-ownership property. These two articles present a strong picture of Interventionism phenomena. In addition, Part IV researches the philosophy grounds of positive law from the Theory of Justice, advocated by John Rawls. Part V advances some legal thinking for interpretation of positive law. Part VI concludes by offering several propositions to local problems concerning the autonomy and its limit in management of a thing held in Co-ownership.