According to the current policy and trend in the world of animal protection, pets wandering on the streets may need some kinds of assistance from human society, such as medical care, housing, adoption, or even euthanasia in special case only for relieving its pain. Nevertheless, animals are usually defined by law as objects in term of ownership applying current law about acquirement, creation, loss and alternation of rights in rem of personal property yet, there are perceivable disputes incurred between ex-owner and later adopter. This comment aims to resolve such disputes with a comparative law approach. It is conceivable that grace period for noticing owner of lost poverty is indications of respecting the property right. However, the owner's interest in his domesticated animals is not without conditions, and should have relative obligations, such as possessing and controlling power de facto over pets, the required ID microchip implantation, and the assurance of animal welfare. These legal protections can be seen as universal global trends. In Japan, the amendment of the Lost Property Act excludes domestic animals and leaves sufficient rooms for the enactment of the Animal Welfare and Management Act. In the US, there is special law for stray animals to fit into the insufficient part of Common Law and lost property regulations. Accordingly, animal protection is the core value in the most recent legal reform trend in developed countries. Such regulations are implemented with clear definitions on rights and obligations of owners, adopters, and rescue shelters for the purpose of animal wellbeing. Considering the overcrowded situation in wandering animal shelters, this paper suggests that Animal Protection Office shouldn't ask adopters to sign affidavit for returning animals, and seriously take their responsibilities to accomplish the purpose of Animal Protection Act of 2015 as well as to facilitate animal adoption in Taiwan.