民法規定占有是對物有事實上管領力，但又以間接占有與占有輔助之概念扭曲此定義，再往往隨不同法律議題而更進一步調整占有之意義。有學說認為，占有除了客觀要件，還應該有占有意思。雖然學說一般認為占有是事實，但不乏主張（因為占有本身被保護）占有已然權利化者。本文運用法律經濟學檢討占有之規範體系，主張：即使結果相同，較簡明的概念體系可以降低資訊成本、減輕思維負擔。因此，占有就是事實上管領力，因為將事實上管領力、利益、責任合一，可降低社會成本、增進社會福祉。占有本身毋須具備占有意思；因得喪占有而得喪物權時，才須考慮占有人之心理狀態。間接占有不是占有，而占有輔助人是占有人。並無堅強理由容許占有之繼承與合併。準占有概念無必要。占有事實之推定不應一概而論。指涉到管領力之占有，是事實，而非一種物權。占有權能可以由部分物權之排他權能中導出。實務上運用占有物返還請求權者，幾乎都是無物權但依契約有權占有者。

The concept of possession is ambiguous. The Taiwan Civil Code first defines possession as actual control over things, but then allows exceptions such as indirect possession and agent in possession. In several specific issues involving possession, the concept of possession is further adjusted. The concept of possession is also highly contentious. Some scholars have contended that actual control is insufficient; rather, animus is also necessary to award possessor status. Besides, even though the Taiwan Civil Code appears to consider possession as a fact, some scholars have argued that possession is a type of (quasi-) right.Based on the economy of concept theory first articulated by Henry Smith, this article re-conceptualizes possession. Specifically, this article argues that a simplified conceptual framework of possession (that is, possession is nothing but actual control-no exception) alleviates the mental burden of legal practitioners and. Indeed, my framework actually better achieves economic efficiency by vesting benefits and liabilities in the persons with actual control. Possession itself does not require any type of intention. Certain type of mental state is required when property rights are acquired or abandoned through gaining or losing possession. Possession generally should not be inherited or tacked. Quasi-possession is a useless concept. Possession as actual control is a fact, whereas right to possess is one stick in the ownership bundle that can be transferred to holders of lesser property interests. In practice in Taiwan, possessors who prevail in a lawsuit of restoring possession do not have any property right but are entitled to possess because of their contracts with owners.