Since the turnover of the sovereignty back to China, the Portuguese judicial system has been substantially well-heritaged and -reserved. This tendency can also find itself in the legal regime of the transference of immovable property, where will and intent based consensus renders the finality and registry has the binding-effect on the third party. Reasons for Portugal to adopt such instruments construed upon its cultural and historical factors, specifically French approach rendered significant influence. National legislators took different positions about the function of registry system: some pursues effect of publicity, while others binding-effect upon the third party. This distinction is obvious but its necessity is questionable. To establish an example, the registry system in Macao can simultaneously have the dual functions. Pity is less focus either from practical aspect or from scholastic point. The beginning section established the systemic analysis of the effect of publicity of registry system. The jurisprudence and formulation will be scrutinized before coming into the legislative intended and value trade-off. The second section will follow the orbit of internal and external impacts of the registry system, answering and combating the legal ambiguities and controversies of the publicity effect of systems both of Portugal and Macao. The assignment of proprietary rights of real estate has two effects internally and externally. Namely, contractual relationship is built as internal effect between parties and binding force as external one. Those two kinds of effects distinguished one from each other because of differentiated mechanics. The internal effect, as the event occur once upon the consensus of wills of parties, always precedes the external. Exceptions cannot be denied as to issues of limited ownership, future proprietary rights and floating charges, where, rarely accompanied with doubts, internal effect occur once the physical transference happens and external register filed. The real question yet to be answered is: what is the scope of the third party, whom shall be bound by the transference between parties. Discussions are heat for both Portuguese and Macanese scholars. To be specific about those controversies, should or should not the legal action be qualified by the acquiring the asset by the third party, the bona fide of the third party and the fairness and reasonableness of consideration. The final section will construct itself upon the practices in Macao, as to the question to what extent the registry system can provide publicity which was originally focuses on binding-effect upon third party. The conclusion will be drawn based on the analysis of the publicity and binding effect of the registry system.

澳门自回归以来，仍然基本保留其原有的葡萄牙的法律制度，其中在不动产 交易规范中，采用的是意思主义的物权变动模式和登记对抗的物业登记制度。葡 萄牙选择该种制度有其历史因素和文化因素，其形成过程尤其受到法国民法的影 响，而后被澳门继受并沿用至今。 各国立法往往选择登记对抗主义或登记生效主义其中一种物业登记制度来 规范不动产交易。登记对抗主义的核心为登记的对抗力，而登记生效主义的核心 为登记的公信力，这两者似乎不可混溶，但其实不然。澳门的登记在具备对抗力 的同时，也具备一定的公信力来保障不动产交易的安全，可惜的是，这点在该领 域的研究中尚付阙如。首先，本文试图对登记对抗制度进行体系化梳理，从登记 对抗主义的法理基础和形成轨迹入手，探析整个登记对抗制度背后的立法原意和 价值取向。其次，以登记对抗中的内部法律关系和外部法律关系为轨迹，对葡萄 牙和澳门的登记对抗力的基本问题和难题进行了阐述和论证。不动产的物权变动 效力可分为内部效力和外部效力，其中内部效力即为当事人之间的债权效力，而 外部效力则为第三人所作登记的对抗效力。这两种效力因其作用机理不同而天然 隔离，外部效力总是滞后于内部效力。内部效力发生的时间点往往是双方当事人 合意达成之时，但也存在所有权保留、以将来物和不特定物为标的的法律行为等 例外情况，在这些情况中内部效力发生点为物变为确定之时。外部效力发生的时 间点为登记成立之后，这点并无争议，存在争议的是当事人间物权变动不可对抗 的登记第三人的范围界定问题，这一点在葡萄牙和澳门都引起了很多的分歧与讨 论。分歧主要存在于第三人取得物权的行为是否必须为法律行为的必要性要件、 第三人是否具备善意的善意要件以及第三人取得行为是否必须有偿的有偿性要 件的取舍上。最后，再辅以对澳门不动产交易和登记程序的设计及实践的评价， 进一步探究澳门的登记对抗主义下登记公信力是否存在及效力大小，从而从登记 对抗力和登记公信力两个方面对澳门如何保障不动产交易安全的制度设计进行 全面的分析和探讨。 关键词：登记对抗主义，登记对抗力，登记公信力