本文從1978、2004、2008三個關於中華民國或華僑團體在大溪地首都Papeete之不動產相關判決，討論中華民國在法國法院利用訴訟途徑尋求民事法律救濟之可能性。在當事人能力方面，巴黎上訴法院於2008判決中特別指出，中華民國此等權利不因其外交處境而受影響，也不因其未爲國際社會以及法國認定爲國家，而欠缺此一權利能力而受影響。雖此等認定並非對於中華民國之國家承認，唯此當可爲日後中華民國在他國法院欲進行民事訴訟之明確判決先例。在實體方面，三個判決分別認定系爭不動產爲親國民黨之華僑團體所有、中華人民共和國所有，復認定爲華僑團體所有。在2004判決中，法院特別提出國家連續原則，此點是否可能成爲法國最高法院最後判決之依據？然此尚須先認定系爭不動產爲中華民國所有，後續判決值得追蹤。

From three cases raised continuously in 1978, 2004 and 2008 about the ownership of some real estate used as Embassy of Republic of China (ROC) in Tahiti in Tahitian and French courts, this article discusses the possible legal status of ROC as a party in French civil procedures. In the 2008 ruling of Paris Appeal Court, it is said that even though the statehood of ROC is neither recognized by international society nor by French authorities, and for that diplomatic reason it lacks its legal status in international arena, but its capacity of being a party in a civil procedure is not influenced at all. Although such a ruling can not be explained as some tacit recognition of the statehood of ROC by French authority, it constitutes a clear precedent that could be claimed by ROC in possible civil disputes in other countries in the future. In the substantive parts, these three rulings separate their opinions about the judgments of ownership of the real estates. Some estimated that it is owned by some Chinese society who is pro-ROC. But some other said that the People's Republic of China is legally the real owner, based on the principle of the continuity of state especially pronounced to justify such a judgment in 2004 ruling. Is it possible that the Cour de Cassation (the French Supreme Court) would follow such a principle, even though legally the premise that the ROC was once the owner should be established? Let's wait and see.