學說、實務對「債權物權化」問題討論甚豐，但往往未清楚認識財產權（物權）之「關係」本質、效力，及其與契約權（債權之一種）之效力差異。學說、實務對財產權應具備之公示方式，忽略資訊成本面向。新增訂之民法第826-1條，除上述問題外，其成效亦值得深入研究。 本文運用法律經濟分析方法，主張：財產權之本質為「人與人間關於某資源之特定權利」，財產權人可以對不特定多數人主張對世排他效力。第826-1條第2項、民法第425條等所創設之法律關係，並不具備所有典型財產關係之特徵，但又不只有對人效力，應歸類為「準財產關係」（即學說所謂「債權物權化」）；並可分為幾種子類型。然而，第826-1條第2項以第三人並非「明知或可得而知」作為取得對世排他效力之要件，民法第425條第1項以「占有中」、第2項以「經公證」作為取得對世排他效力之要件，均會迫使潛在交易第三人支出可觀之資訊成本，並非最有效率之公示方式。相對地，第826-1條第1項創設之不動產分管權（為典型之財產權），以登記作為公示方法，可有效促進共有物分管使用。但若以第826-1條第1項作為創設其他新物權之平台，因稅制難以配合、第823 條對不分割期限之限制過嚴等理由，成效難期。是故，其他物權類型（如人役權）之增訂，仍有實益。

Ever since J.Y. Interpretation No.349, which partially vacated a Taiwan Supreme Court precedent in force for 35 years, scholars in Taiwan have been debating whether "covenants to use co-owned property" should run with assets and bind share transferees. This issue links to a broader and even more fiercely debated issue, the distinction among contractual rights, property rights, and "propertized contractual rights" (or "quasi-property rights" in my term). In 2009, the Taiwan Civil Code added Article 826-1, which stipulates that covenants to use co-owned real property shall run with assets on the condition that they have been registered, while covenants to use personal property will bind share transferees only when they know or should have known the existence of such covenants. The design by Article 826-1 is different from both the Supreme Court precedent and J.Y. Interpretation No.349, raising questions regarding its desirability. In addition, Article 826-1 seems to make fuzzier the distinction among the three types of rights mentioned above. Following the analytical framework laid out by Thomas Merrill and Henry Smith in a series of seminal articles, this article examines the above issue through law-and-economic perspective. I argue property right is different from a contractual right; therefore, Taiwan and other civil law countries alike should maintain the numerus clausus principle. Furthermore, "quasi-property rights" is not the only possible intermediate relation in the property/contract interface (as claimed by some Civil Law scholars). Merrill & Smith have found two types of intermediate relations (quasi-multitaland compound-paucital). One of this article's contribution is to point out that quasi-multital can further be categorized, with Article 425 of the Taiwan Civil Code, Article 826-1 II of the Taiwan Civil Code, and a recent Taiwan Supreme Court decision creating three different sub-types. I also argue that Taiwan's Supreme Court and lawmakers have neglected the importance of notice, thus creating or recognizing new forms of (quasi-) property rights that increases transaction costs between dealing parties and imposes higher information costs on third parties. Regarding the efficiency of Article 826-1 I of the Taiwan Civil Code, I argue that itsrequirement of registration as notice makes economic sense and facilitates the use of co-owned properties. It has been argued that Article 826-1 I can be utilized as a platform to create any type of new real property right. Although I agree that this is plausible, the current tax regime and Article 823's restraint on non-partition agreements shall prove to be significant hurdles to such arrangements. Therefore, new types of property forms, such as certain types of servitudes, shall be enacted into the Civil Code.