Identifying Legal Solutions to Resolve Conflicts of Property Rights in the Implementation of Relevant Regulations under the Civil Code

Abstract

This article examines the legal conflict between private property rights and the implementation of regulations governing public lands, natural resources, and related administrative determinations within the framework of the Civil Code. The study is based on the premise that many disputes concerning land ownership, title validity, possession, and administrative classification do not arise from the absence of legal rules, but from inconsistency among civil law principles, public law regulations, registration mechanisms, and quasi-judicial procedures. Using a doctrinal and analytical approach, the article explores the conceptual foundations of ownership, the legal status of public and national lands, and the sources of tension between private rights and state regulatory powers. The analysis shows that ownership in civil law is treated as a highly protected real right that includes possession, use, enjoyment, and transfer, while public law simultaneously authorizes state intervention for the preservation of forests, rangelands, waterways, and other resources considered essential to collective welfare and intergenerational interests. The article argues that the central difficulty lies in the lack of coordination between these legal spheres, especially where administrative classification, title correction, and land registration affect previously recognized private claims. It further demonstrates that the persistence of conflict is reinforced by fragmented institutions, inconsistent evidentiary practices, limited procedural safeguards, and insufficient judicial oversight. The study concludes that effective resolution requires clear legal criteria for land classification, a stronger evidentiary framework, integrated cadastral and registration systems, meaningful judicial review, and proportionate limits on administrative discretion. It also finds that a sustainable legal response cannot be achieved through unconditional preference for either private ownership or public authority. Instead, the legal system must adopt a coordinated rule-of-law model capable of preserving legitimate property rights while also protecting genuinely public resources. Such an approach strengthens legal certainty, improves institutional legitimacy, and creates a more balanced framework for resolving ownership disputes in matters involving land, natural resources, and public regulation.