對於台灣的原住民族而言，當今與其土地利用及權利最切深及最具關聯性之法律制度，當屬原住民保留地劃設之制度。本研究之目的在於探討原住民保留地於私有化之後，法規範雖仍明文規定非原住民不得承受原住民保留地，此項高度屬人性之限制。但非原住民卻利用實務上承認之借名登記（找人頭），於形式上借用原住民之名義，承受登記為保留地所有權人。然土地之占有、管理、受益、處分等所有權之權能，實質上均由非原住民所完全支配，出名之原住民僅是形式上登記為「人頭」所有權人罷了。
本文研究核心即在於原住民依法取得保留地所有權之後，違反保留地僅得由原住民承受之規定而轉售予非原住民。然礙於承受人應具原住民身分始可承受之法律障礙，遂以借用原住民名義登記方式迂迴法令限制，達到實質取得保留地支配使用目的。此類原、漢之間以借名登記買受原住民保留地情形，於當今台灣社會經濟高度發展下日趨嚴重，除政府行政機關未確實執行保留地管理辦法予以管制，以致造成非原住民非法占用或實質承受保留地外，司法機關對非原住民以借名登記方式買受保留地之行為，最高法院對此於各時期所為之判決，雖有不同之法律見解。但多數實務仍審認非原住民以借名登記買受保留地之借名登記契約於法仍屬有效。然因如此認定之結果，亦造成民間無視法令之限制及制度規劃之目的，助長非原住民更肆無忌憚的借用原住民名義承受保留地之所有權，導致保留地持續流失於非原住民之手，造成保留地形式上僅登記為原住民所有，但實質上已造成保留地所有權之空洞化、虛假化、泡沫化之普遍現象。
就多元文化社會角度觀察，維持民族固有文化，必然與土地資源之利用有不可切割的關係，倘無土地資源作為基礎，則一切生活方式及傳統文化將難以延續。為讓族群及其所屬文化得以生生不息，必須確保土地資源之利用。而為使原住民族可取得及保有土地資源，除賦予原住民族對土地具有自主性外，更重要的是立法者應建立一個完善的法律防禦制度，防免非原住民利用優勢政經地位侵奪其土地；司法者面對原、漢之間因保留地訴訟個案時，不能僅以私人財產權涉訟角度看待之，應宏觀審酌保留地一旦流失於非原住民之手，除瓦解整個保留地制度外，也勢必破壞整體原住民族對土地之依賴，最終將導致文化滅絕及喪失族群之主體性。因當其他族群對原住民族土地之利用同樣具有使用或決定權時，即會排除原住民對於土地之利用，甚至迫其遷離原鄉，此將直接危及族群整體文化之存續。在原住民族對土地具有充分之自主性時，始可確保原住民族文化之存續及社會多元文化之維持，達到憲法所要求的多元文化國家之目標。
因非原住民藉由借名登記買受保留地，導致保留地所有權空洞化之現象，勢必連動造成保留地制度之虛假化，也造成制度目的之泡沫化；本研究將觀察各時期不同政權對台灣原住民族土地於地權上之制度，解悉其地權變化脈絡，進而歸納當代保留地流失之成因為何？並以最高法院就原、漢族群之間以借名登記契約買受保留地之判決為核心，分析保留地之流失與借名登記契約之關係，現行法規範如何防堵之修法建議，政策制度面應如何調整，解決原漢土地爭議之方案，最後思量原住民保留地制度下階段定位。
關鍵詞：原住民、原住民保留地、借名登記、脫法行為、消極信託、契約自由

For the aborigines of Taiwan, the legal system that is most relevant to land use is the aboriginal reservation system. The purpose of this research is to explore the original privatization of aboriginal reservations. Although the law stipulates that non-indigenous peoples shall not inherit the provisions of the aboriginal reservations, non-indigenous peoples register by borrowing the use of indigenous peoples to inherit the aboriginal reservations. The owner. However, the land is still essentially completely controlled by non-indigenous people, and the aboriginal people are only formal owners.
Non-indigenous people violate the laws and regulations that are only limited to indigenous people and achieve the purpose of obtaining land. This is even more serious under the social and economic development of Taiwan. In addition to the administrative organs failing to implement controls and causing illegal occupation by non-indigenous people, judicial organs treat non-indigenous people Regarding the act of obtaining land by registering under the name, the Supreme Court has decided in various periods, although there are different legal opinions. But most think this is legal. Such a judgment caused the non-indigenous people to use the indigenous people to inherit the land reserved by the indigenous people, which led to the continuous loss of land to the non-indigenous people, resulting in the widespread phenomenon that the land owners were false. Maintaining the inherent culture of a nation must have something to do with the land, otherwise the culture will be difficult to maintain. Therefore, to ensure land use and allow the indigenous people to obtain land, in addition to granting the indigenous people the autonomy of the land, legislators should also establish a sound legal defense system to prevent land from being infringed; the judiciary should not only look at individual property rights. It should be assumed that the loss of land will inevitably destroy the indigenous people’s dependence on land, and will eventually lead to cultural loss.
This research will observe the land system of the indigenous peoples by different governments in different periods, understand the changes in their land rights, and summarize the reasons for the loss of modern reserved land? And based on the Supreme Court’s judgment on the deed of registration of aboriginal reserved land, it analyzes the relationship between land loss and the deed of registration of borrowed name, how the current law should prevent blockages, how the policy should be adjusted, and finally consider the next stage of the aboriginal reservation system Positioning.
Keywords: Indigenous people, Indigenous people''s reservation, borrowing name registration, escaping from law, passive trust, freedom of contract