摘要： 摘要:取得时效和诉讼时效都可以调整占有和所有的分离。取得时效将占有直接转化为所有，诉讼时效通过限制返还原物请求权，间接影响所有和占有的分离。对于返还原物请求权应受诉讼时效限制的肯定说，其价值正当性仍存在澄清的必要。在立法技术层次，由于诉讼时效不能解决时效届满后物权利益的归属问题，诉讼时效不适合调整占有和所有的分离。“搭桥模式”将取得时效的法律效果嫁接在诉讼时效的构成要件上，可弥补单纯诉讼时效进路的不足。“搭桥模式”或传统的取得时效模式都可减少或消除所有和占有的分离、彻底解决时效届满后物权利益的再分配问题。至于最终选择何者，则取决于立法者的偏好。“搭桥模式”重点规制原所有权人的不作为，取得时效模式侧重考察占有质量。“搭桥模式”可以在一定期间内完全消除所有和占有的分离。传统的取得时效，尤其是时间段善意取得时效，其目标不在于完全消除而在于部分地减少占有和所有的分离。

关键词: 占有和所有分离, 取得时效, 诉讼时效, 二元时效模式, “搭桥模式”

Abstract: The separation between the possession and the ownership can be regulated both by the acquisition prescription and by the limitation periods.The possession can be promoted to the ownership by the acquisition prescription.By limiting the action of vindication through limitation periods, the later can regulate the separation between the possession and the ownership indirectly.Further clarification is necessary for the justification of limitation periods on the action of vindication.The limitation period on the action of vindication cannot allocate the real interests between related participants after the completion of limitation periods.Therefore, the limitation period isn't suitable to limit the ownership from the time level.Both the traditional acquisitive prescription and the bridge model are based on the benefit balancing mechanism of limitation periods.It depends on the legislator's preference to select.The bridge model focuses on the omission of the owner, the model of acquisitive prescription on the quality of the possession.The former can completely eliminate the separation of ownership and possession within a certain period.The goal of the latter, especially the good faith acquisitive prescription, is only to reduce them.

Key words: Separation between Possession and Ownership, Acquisitive Prescription, Limitation Periods, Model of Parallel Running of two Limitations, Bridge Model