The revisions include the addition of a retroactive clause to the implementation law of the Civil Code that protects the property ownership rights of women as well as entirely new changes that end decades of partiality to men in child custody cases.

The retroactive clause stipulates that, regardless of their current marital status, women who got married before June 4, 1995, are eligible to claim ownership of real estate which was purchased and registered under the women's names before June 4, 1995.

The clause was introduced to compensate for the inadequacy of the 1985-revised Civil Code and its implementation law in protecting women's property ownership rights.

The ROC Civil Code as enacted in 1931 has been considered partial to men in domestic matters. The law was first revised in 1985 to improve women's rights, with a major change at that time concerning property ownership rights, articulated in Article 1017.

The original Article 1017 entitled the husband to the ownership of all property belonging to the couple at the time of their marriage as well as property acquired by the couple during their marriage, with the exception of what is called the wife's "contributed" and "separate" property.

Contributed property refers to property which belongs to the wife at the time of marriage and was acquired by her as a result of inheritance or donation. Separate property refers to articles such as jewelry and clothing which are exclusively intended for personal use and are essential to the wife's occupation. It includes gifts acquired by the wife which the donor has designated as separate property.

Because Article 1017 failed to protect the wife's ownership of property which she acquired on her own during marriage, the Justice Ministry amended it in 1985 to permit wives to maintain the ownership of property which they acquired on their own either before or during marriage. But the well-intentioned 1985 legislation did not include a retroactive clause to shield women married before that year, thus the need for the retroactive article approved Sept. 6.

The other Civil Code revisions approved by the Legislature Sept. 6 include a change to Article 1089. The article, known as "the patriarchal article," was ruled unconstitutional in 1994 by the Council of Grand Justices.

The original article stipulated that husbands have the final say in disputes with their wives over significant decisions regarding the care of their minor children. In its 1994 interpretation, the Council of Grand Justices, which is under the Judicial Yuan, ruled the article should be repealed before Sept. 24, 1996.

The newly revised article gives the court the responsibility to arbitrate and settle the disputes in the best interest of the minors involved. Also, in ruling on such cases, the court must take into consideration the various appeals of the parents, the children themselves and the social welfare authorities.

Changes were also made to stipulations about the guardianship of children in the event of parental divorce, including the abolishment of Article 1051, which automatically gave the father custody of the children in divorce cases.

A revision to Article 1055 grants the father and the mother equal rights and obligations in child guardianship issues. The exercise of post-divorce parental privileges will be based on agreements worked out by both parties, according to the revised article.

However, if the mother and father can't come to terms effectively, the court has the right to make a final decision in the best interest of the minors and in consideration of pledges by the parents, the children themselves and the social welfare institutions.

If neither parent is considered a suitable guardian, the court may appoint a guardian in the interest of the children.

Women's rights groups in Taiwan, which were the driving force behind the revision, called the Legislature's action "comforting." Together with several legislators who have been stern advocates of the revision, the groups vowed to continue to push phase by phase for more changes to other laws that are unfair to women.

Making a comprehensive revision to stipulations pertaining to matrimonial property rule will be the next step, said Yu Mei-nu, chairman of the Awakening Foundation, a women's rights group active in the issue.

Yu, herself a lawyer, noted that under the matrimonial property statutes it is the husband who has the ownership and management of, and the right to use and to collect profits from all properties belonging to the married couple at the time of the marriage as well as the property acquired by them during the marriage.

Yu said that the women's group hopes the statutory property rules can be changed to rules under which the housewife gets paid for her housekeeping work and the husband and the wife not only have their respective property ownership rights but have rights to manage, use and collect benefits from their own properties.