1Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XIV. By the Law of the Twelve Tables, legal guardianships are granted to agnates and blood relatives, as well as to patrons, that is to say, to those persons who can be admitted to lawful inheritance. This rule has been established most wisely, in order that those who expect the succession may protect the property to prevent it from being wasted. 1It sometimes occurs that the expectation of the succession belongs to one person and the guardianship to another; as, for instance, where there is a female blood-relative of the guardian, for the inheritance, in fact, belongs to a female agnate, but a male agnate is entitled to the guardianship. The same rule applies in the case of freedmen, where there is a female patron and the son of a male patron, for the latter will obtain the guardianship, and the former the estate. This is also the case where there is a daughter of the patron and a grandson of the latter. 2Where a brother of the ward is in the hands of the enemy, the guardianship is not granted to an agnate of the next degree; and if the patron is in the hands of the enemy, the guardianship is not granted to the son of the latter, but a temporary appointment is made by the Prætor. 3Sometimes, also, guardianship is established without inheritance, and sometimes inheritance without guardianship; as, for instance, in the case of a party who conceals himself after he has been asked to manumit his slave, for the Divine Pius stated, as a general rule, in a Rescript to Aurelius Bassus, that a party would not be entitled to the right of patronage, in the following words: “It is clear that the reluctance of persons who wish to avoid the grant of freedom prescribed by a trust, shall be punished by not being permitted to acquire the right of patronage over him whom they do not wish to be free.” The same rule will apply where a freedman is assigned to the daughter of the patron, for the guardianship will remain with her brothers, as Marcellus states, and the lawful inheritance will belong to their sister.

2The Same, On Sabinus, Book XXXVII. There is no doubt that legal guardianship is lost by a change of the civil status of the ward, even if he should not have lost his citizenship.

3The Same, On Sabinus, Book XXXVIII. Legal guardianship, which is granted to patrons by the Law of the Twelve Tables, is not, indeed, granted expressly or specifically, but as the result of the right of succession conferred upon patrons by this same law. 1Therefore a man who has manumitted a slave becomes a guardian by the Law of the Twelve Tables, whether he acted voluntarily, or whether he manumitted him, having been obliged to do so by the terms of a trust. 2But even if he purchased a slave for the purpose of manumitting him, under this law, and by virtue of a Constitution of the Divine Marcus, addressed to Ofilius Victorinus, he should obtain his freedom, he must be held to be the guardian of said slave. 3It is evident that if a slave should obtain his freedom in accordance with the Rubrian Decree of the Senate, he will not have as guardian the person charged with his manumission, but, having been liberated by the will of his master, he will belong to the family of the latter. In this instance, the guardianship which does not belong to the patron will belong to the children of the latter. This rule applies to all freedmen manumitted by will. 4Where two or more persons manumit a slave, all become his guardians. If, however, a woman should be among those who manumitted him, it must be held that the males alone will be his guardians. 5Where one of several patrons dies, the guardianship remains with the survivors, even though the deceased may have left a son. If, however, a patron is taken by the enemy, his fellow-patrons remain sole guardians until he is released. In like manner, if one of them is reduced to slavery, it is evident that the others remain guardians. 6If, however, all of the patrons should die, the guardianship will then vest in their children. 7Hence, if one of two patrons leaves a son, and the other a grandson, shall the guardianship vest in the son alone, or also in the grandson, for the reason that the latter is the next of kin in the family of his father? This point should be settled in accordance with the rule governing legal inheritances, for a legal inheritance belongs to the son alone, and therefore the guardianship descends to the son alone, and after the son to the grandson. 8It may be asked whether the guardianship should be granted to the grandson, where the son of the patron is either removed or excused from serving. Marcellus states that he is of the opinion that the grandson cannot succeed, and therefore that he must be excluded from the guardianship, and another appointed in his stead, in order that succession may not be permitted in such cases. 9Succession should be permitted in legal guardianship not only where death occurs, but also where forfeiture of civil rights takes place. Wherefore, where the nearest relative loses his civil rights, he who is next in degree succeeds to the administration of the guardianship. 10Where a father emancipates his son or his daughter, his grandson or his granddaughter, or any other descendants under age whom he has subject to his authority, he occupies the place of their legal guardian.

4Modestinus, Differences, Book IV. Where a man dies leaving children who have attained their majority, they become the fiduciary guardians of their brothers or sisters.

5Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXXV. No one appoints legal guardians, for the Law of the Twelve Tables constitutes them such. 1While, however, it is certain that they should be compelled to give security, many authorities hold that even a patron and his son, as well as his other descendants, can be forced to give bond for the preservation of the property of their wards. It is better to leave it to the judgment of the Prætor, after proper investigation, whether the patron and his children should furnish security or not; so that if the party in question is honest, the security may be remitted, and especially if the estate is of small value. Where, however, the patron is of inferior rank, or of doubtful integrity, it must be held in this case that there is ground to exact security, if either the amount of the responsibility, or the rank of the person, or any other good reason should require it to be given. 2The question arises in the case of legal guardians, and in that of those appointed by magistrates, whether the guardianship can be granted to one of them alone. Labeo says that guardianship can be properly granted to one of them, for it may happen that the others are either absent, or insane. This opinion should be accepted on account of its utility, and the administration of the guardianship granted to one of the parties. 3Can these guardians then institute proceedings against one another, in accordance with the rule above stated? The better opinion is, that if all of them did not give security, or if the time for giving it has expired (for sometimes security is not required of them, or it has not been sufficient or the municipal magistrates by whom they were appointed either could not exact it, or were unwilling to do so), it may be said with respect to them, that proceedings can be instituted where security has not been furnished. 4Can the same be said with reference to patrons, especially where security is not given? I think that, in the case of patrons, proceedings cannot be instituted, unless where there is good cause for it, in order that no one may lessen the expectation of succession. For if guardianship should not be granted to one patron, he will still be liable for any loss caused by his co-patron who alone improperly administers the affairs of the ward. 5Where a legal guardian forfeits his civil rights, it must be said that he no longer has a right to act, and that the guardianship having been terminated, there is ground for the appointment of a guardian by the court.

6Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXXVIII. Where a parent dies intestate, guardianship is granted to his next of kin. A person, however, is held to die intestate, not only where he did not make a will, but also where he did not appoint guardians for his children, as in this instance, he dies intestate, so far as guardianship is concerned. We hold that the same rule applies where a testamentary guardian dies while the ward is still under the age of puberty, for, in this case, his guardianship vests in the next of kin on the father’s side.

7Gaius, Institutes, Book I. Those are agnates who are connected by relationship to persons of the male sex, just as cognates on the father’s side; as, for instance, a brother begotten by the same father, the son of a brother, or a grandson sprung from the latter; and, in like manner, a paternal uncle, the son of the latter, or a grandson descended from him.

8Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXXVIII. If I leave a son under the age of puberty, my brother and a grandson by another son will both be guardians of my said son, if they have arrived at full age, because they are in the same degree of relationship.

9Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book XII. Where there are several agnates, the next of kin among them will obtain the guardianship, but where there are several in the same degree, they will all be entitled to it.

10Hermogenianus, Epitomes of Law, Book II. A woman who is next of kin on the father’s side, cannot prevent another relative in a more remote degree from obtaining the guardianship of a child who has not arrived at puberty; and therefore a paternal uncle will be the legal guardian of the son of his brother even though the latter may have left a sister. Nor can a paternal or a maternal aunt prevent a great uncle or his nephews from becoming guardians. 1A person who is deaf and dumb cannot become a legal guardian, nor can he be designated by will, or in any other manner whatsoever, so as to render his appointment valid.

No translation given.