Corpus iurisprudentiae Romanae

Repertorium zu den Quellen des römischen Rechts

Digesta Iustiniani Augusti

Recognovit Mommsen (1870) et retractavit Krüger (1928)
Convertit in Anglica lingua Scott (1932)
Dig. XXXVII1,
De bonorum possessionibus
Liber trigesimus septimus
I.

De bonorum possessionibus

(Concerning the Prætorian Possession of Property.)

1Ul­pia­nus li­bro tri­ge­si­mo no­no ad edic­tum. Bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio ad­mis­sa com­mo­da et in­com­mo­da he­redi­ta­ria item­que do­mi­nium re­rum, quae in his bo­nis sunt, tri­buit: nam haec om­nia bo­nis sunt con­iunc­ta.

1Ad Dig. 37,1,1Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 42, Note 3.Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXXIX. Prætorian possession transfers both the benefits and inconveniences attached to an estate, as well as the ownership of the property belonging to the same; for all these things are associated with it.

2Idem li­bro quar­to de­ci­mo ad edic­tum. In om­ni­bus enim vi­ce he­redum bo­no­rum pos­ses­so­res ha­ben­tur.

2Ad Dig. 37,1,2Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 42, Note 3.The Same, On the Edict, Book XIV. Prætorian possessors, in every respect, take the place of heirs.

3Idem li­bro tri­ge­si­mo no­no ad edic­tum. Bo­na au­tem hic, ut ple­rum­que so­le­mus di­ce­re, ita ac­ci­pien­da sunt uni­ver­si­ta­tis cu­ius­que suc­ces­sio­nem, qua suc­ce­di­tur in ius de­mor­tui sus­ci­pi­tur­que eius rei com­mo­dum et in­com­mo­dum: nam si­ve sol­ven­do sunt bo­na si­ve non sunt, si­ve dam­num ha­bent si­ve lu­crum, si­ve in cor­po­ri­bus sunt si­ve in ac­tio­ni­bus, in hoc lo­co pro­prie bo­na ap­pel­la­bun­tur. 1He­redi­ta­tis au­tem bo­no­rum­ve pos­ses­sio, ut La­beo scri­bit, non uti re­rum pos­ses­sio ac­ci­pien­da est: est enim iu­ris ma­gis quam cor­po­ris pos­ses­sio. de­ni­que et­si ni­hil cor­po­ra­le est in he­redi­ta­te, at­ta­men rec­te eius bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem ad­gni­tam La­beo ait. 2Bo­no­rum igi­tur pos­ses­sio­nem ita rec­te de­fi­nie­mus ius per­se­quen­di re­ti­nen­di­que pa­tri­mo­nii si­ve rei, quae cu­ius­que cum mo­ri­tur fuit. 3In­vi­to au­tem ne­mi­ni bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio ad­quiri­tur. 4A mu­ni­ci­pi­bus et so­cie­ta­ti­bus et de­cu­riis et cor­po­ri­bus bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio ad­gnos­ci pot­est. pro­in­de si­ve ac­tor eo­rum no­mi­ne ad­mit­tat si­ve quis alius, rec­te com­pe­tet bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio: sed et si ne­mo pe­tat vel ad­gno­ve­rit bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem no­mi­ne mu­ni­ci­pii, ha­be­bit mu­ni­ci­pium bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem prae­to­ris edic­to. 5Da­ri au­tem bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio pot­est tam pa­tris fa­mi­lias quam fi­lii fa­mi­lias, si mo­do ius tes­tan­di ha­buit de pe­cu­lio cas­tren­si vel qua­si cas­tren­si. 6Sed et eius, qui apud hos­tes de­ces­sit, bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem ad­mit­ti pos­se, quam­vis in ser­vi­tu­te de­ce­dat, nul­la du­bi­ta­tio est. 7Ad­quire­re quis bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem pot­est vel per se­met­ip­sum vel per alium. quod si me non man­dan­te bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio mi­hi pe­ti­ta sit, tunc com­pe­tet, cum ra­tum ha­bue­ro id quod ac­tum est. de­ni­que si an­te de­ces­se­ro quam ra­tum ha­beam, nul­la du­bi­ta­tio est quin non com­pe­tet mi­hi bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio, quia ne­que ego ra­tum ha­bui ne­que he­res meus ra­tum ha­be­re pot­est, cum ad eum non trans­eat ius bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nis. 8Si cau­sa co­gni­ta bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio de­tur, non ali­bi da­bi­tur quam pro tri­bu­na­li, quia ne­que de­cre­tum de pla­no in­ter­po­ni ne­que cau­sa co­gni­ta bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio ali­bi quam pro tri­bu­na­li da­ri pot­est. 9In bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­ne scien­dum est ius es­se ad­cres­cen­di: pro­in­de si plu­res sint, qui­bus bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio com­pe­tit, quo­rum unus ad­mi­sit bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem, ce­te­ri non ad­mi­se­runt,

3Ad Dig. 37,1,3Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 42, Note 3.The Same, On the Edict, Book XXXIX. The term “property” in this instance (as we generally accept the term), must be understood to mean everything belonging to an estate to which succession is granted under the rights of the deceased, all benefits and disadvantages connected with it being included. For the estate is either solvent or insolvent, and is liable to loss or gain, or the assets consist of things which are corporeal, or of rights of action; and, under these circumstances, they are very properly designated property. 1The possession of an estate, or prætorian possession (as Labeo says), should not be understood to be the actual possession of the property, for it is rather legal than real. Hence, where nothing corporeal belongs to the estate, Labeo holds that, nevertheless, prætorian possession may be acquired. 2Therefore, we define prætorian possession to be the right of recovering or retaining an estate, or the effects which belonged to someone at the time of his death. 3Prætorian possession of property is not acquired by anyone against his will. 4Prætorian possession can be acquired by municipalities, associations, decurite, and corporate bodies. Hence an agent of any of the said corporations can obtain it, or anyone else can do so in their name; and even if no one should demand or receive such possession in the name of a municipality, it still can acquire it under the Edict of the Prætor. 5Prætorian possession of property can be granted to the head of a household, as well as to a son under paternal control, provided the latter has the right of disposing of his peculium castrense or quasi castrense, by will. 6There is no doubt that prætorian possession of the estate of a person who has died in the hands of the enemy can be acquired, even though he may have died in a condition of slavery. 7Any person can obtain prætorian possession either himself or through the agency of another. If, however, someone should demand possession for me, when I have not directed this to be done, his act will not be legal until I have ratified it. Moreover, there is no doubt that if I should die before ratifying his act, I will not be entitled to the possession of the property, because I have not consented to what he has done, and my heir cannot do so, as the right to claim prætorian possession does not pass to him. 8Where prætorian possession is granted after proper cause has been shown, it shall not be granted anywhere else than in court, because the Prætor cannot render such a decree without ceremony; nor, after an investigation, can prætorian possession be granted anywhere else than in his tribunal. 9It should be remembered that the right of accrual applies to the prætorian possession of property. Hence, if there are several persons entitled to such possession, and one of them obtains it, the others are not included:

4Gaius li­bro oc­ta­vo ad le­gem Iu­liam et Pa­piam. vel­uti quod spre­ve­runt ius suum aut tem­po­re bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nis fi­ni­to ex­clu­si sunt aut an­te mor­tui sunt quam pe­tie­runt bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem,

4Gaius, On the Lex Julia et Papia, Book VIII. (For instance, where they have relinquished their right, or have been excluded from prætorian possession by lapse of time, or have died before demanding possession):

5Ul­pia­nus li­bro tri­ge­si­mo no­no ad edic­tum. ei, qui ad­mi­sit, ad­cres­cent et­iam hae por­tio­nes, quae ce­te­ris com­pe­te­rent, si pe­tis­sent bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem.

5Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXXIX. For the shares to which the others would have been entitled, if they had claimed possession of the estate, will accrue to the one who did obtain possession.

6Pau­lus li­bro qua­dra­ge­si­mo pri­mo ad edic­tum. Sed cum pa­tro­no qui­dem con­tra ta­bu­las cer­tae pa­tris bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem prae­tor pol­li­cea­tur, scrip­to au­tem he­redi se­cun­dum ta­bu­las al­te­rius par­tis: con­ve­nit non es­se ius ad­cres­cen­di. igi­tur non pe­ten­te scrip­to se­cun­dum ta­bu­las al­te­rius quo­que par­tis no­mi­na­tim pa­tro­no pos­ses­sio­nem pol­li­ce­tur, cum ce­te­ri, qui­bus ad­cres­cen­di ius est, se­mel de­bent ad­gnos­ce­re bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem. 1Bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nis be­ne­fi­cium mul­ti­plex est: nam quae­dam bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nes com­pe­tunt con­tra vo­lun­ta­tem, quae­dam se­cun­dum vo­lun­ta­tem de­func­to­rum, nec non ab in­tes­ta­to ha­ben­ti­bus ius le­gi­ti­mum vel non ha­ben­ti­bus prop­ter ca­pi­tis de­mi­nutio­nem. quam­vis enim iu­re ci­vi­li de­fi­ciant li­be­ri, qui prop­ter ca­pi­tis de­mi­nutio­nem de­sie­runt sui he­redes es­se, prop­ter ae­qui­ta­tem ta­men re­scin­dit eo­rum ca­pi­tis de­mi­nutio­nem prae­tor. le­gum quo­que tuen­da­rum cau­sa dat bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem. 2No­tis scrip­tae ta­bu­lae non con­ti­nen­tur edic­to, quia no­tas lit­te­ras non es­se Pe­dius li­bro vi­ce­si­mo quin­to ad edic­tum scri­bit.

6Paulus, On the Edict, Book XLI. But where the Prætor promises possession of a certain part of an estate to a patron, contrary to the provisions of the will, and promises possession of the remainder to the appointed heir, in accordance with the terms of the will, it is held that the right of accrual does not apply. Therefore, he promises possession of his share expressly to the patron, when the appointed heir does not claim his share under the will; as those entitled to the right of accrual must, at least once, demand possession of the estate. 1There are various advantages attaching to prætorian possession, for some kinds of possession are obtained contrary to the provisions of the will of the testator, and others in accordance with them; and sometimes the parties have a lawful right to it on the ground of intestacy, or they are not entitled to it because of having changed their civil status. For although, under the Civil Law, children are excluded from being direct heirs on account of their change of condition, still, the Prætor can, for equitable reasons, rescind this forfeiture of citizenship. He therefore grants possession of the property for the purpose of observing certain laws. 2Testamentary notes are not considered by the Edict as wills; for Pedius in the Twenty-fifth Book on the Edict says that notes are not letters.

7Ul­pia­nus li­bro pri­mo ad Sa­binum. Ser­vus bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem rec­te ad­mit­te­re pot­est, si prae­tor de con­di­cio­ne eius cer­tus sit: nam et ab­sen­ti et non pe­ten­ti da­ri bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio pot­est, si hoc ip­sum prae­tor non igno­ret. er­go et fe­mi­na pot­erit alii bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem pe­te­re. 1Im­pu­bes nec bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem ad­mit­te­re nec iu­di­cium si­ne tu­to­ris auc­to­ri­ta­te ac­ci­pe­re pot­est. 2Quia tu­tor pu­pil­lo et pa­ter in­fan­ti fi­lio bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem pe­te­re pos­sunt, dies, qui­bus tu­tor aut pa­ter scit, ce­de­re pla­cet.

7Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book I. A slave can legally be granted possession of an estate if the Prætor is certain of his civil condition. Possession can also be granted to a person who is absent and does not demand it, if the Prætor is not aware that this is the case. A woman, also, can apply for prætorian possession in behalf of another. 1A minor under the age of puberty cannot be granted possession of an estate by the Prætor, nor can he join issue in the case, without the authority of his guardian, because a guardian can demand possession for his ward, and a father can do so for his son. 2It has been decided that the time when possession must be demanded for a minor begins when the guardian or father became aware that the minor was entitled to it.

8Pau­lus li­bro oc­ta­vo ad Plau­tium. Tu­tor au­tem bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem pu­pil­lo com­pe­ten­tem re­pu­dia­re non pot­est, quia tu­to­ri pe­te­re per­mis­sum est, non et­iam re­pu­dia­re.

8Paulus, On Plautius, Book VIII. Moreover, a guardian cannot reject the prætorian possession of an estate to which his ward is entitled, because a guardian is permitted to claim it, but not to reject it.

9Pom­po­nius li­bro ter­tio ad Sa­binum. Si plu­res gra­dus sint pos­ses­sio­nis ad­mit­ten­dae, quam­diu in­cer­tum sit pe­tie­rit nec ne prior, pos­te­rio­ri diem non pro­ce­de­re con­stat.

9Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book III. Where there are several persons of different degrees of relationship entitled to prætorian possession, as long as it is uncertain whether one of them has the right to demand possession, or not, it has been settled that the time does not run against one of the last degree.

10Pau­lus li­bro se­cun­do ad Sa­binum. In bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­ni­bus iu­ris igno­ran­tia non prod­est, quo mi­nus dies ce­dat, et id­eo he­redi in­sti­tu­to et an­te aper­tas ta­bu­las dies ce­dit. sa­tis est enim sci­re mor­tuum es­se se­que pro­xi­mum co­gna­tum fuis­se co­piam­que eo­rum quos con­su­le­ret ha­buis­se: scien­tiam enim non hanc ac­ci­pi, quae iu­ris pru­den­ti­bus sit, sed eam, quam quis aut per se ha­beat aut con­su­len­do pru­den­tio­res ad­se­qui pot­est.

10Paulus, On Sabinus, Book II. Ignorance of the law is of no advantage in preventing the claim from being barred by lapse of time, in the case of prætorian possession of property. Hence, the time begins to run, so far as the appointed heir is concerned, even before the will has been opened; for it is enough for him to know that the testator is dead, and that he is his next of kin, and had access to persons of whom he could ask advice. For, in this instance, knowledge is not understood to be such as is possessed by persons learned in the law, but such as anyone whosoever may possess, or can acquire by applying to others who are more learned than himself.

11Gaius li­bro quar­to de­ci­mo ad edic­tum pro­vin­cia­le. Si pu­pil­lo tu­tor bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem pe­tie­rit et plus in­com­mo­di quam com­mo­di haec bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio ha­beat, tu­tor tu­te­lae iu­di­cio te­ne­tur.

11Gaius, On the Provincial Edict, Book XIV. Where a guardian claims prætorian possession in behalf of his ward, and it is found to be of greater disadvantage than benefit to him, the guardian will be liable to an action on guardianship.

12Ul­pia­nus li­bro qua­dra­ge­si­mo oc­ta­vo ad edic­tum. Non est amb­igen­dum, quod ple­rum­que et con­tra fis­cum et con­tra rem pu­bli­cam ad­mit­ti de­beant qui­dam, ut pu­ta ven­ter, item fu­rio­sus, item is qui cap­ti­vi bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem pe­tit. 1Ubi­cum­que lex vel se­na­tus vel con­sti­tu­tio ca­pe­re he­redi­ta­tem pro­hi­bet, et bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio ces­sat.

12Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XLVIII. There is no reason to doubt that persons can, very frequently, obtain prætorian possession against the Treasury, and against a municipality; as, for example, where an unborn child, a lunatic, or one who is a captive in the hands of the enemy, claims prætorian possession of property. 1Whenever a law, a Decree of the Senate, or an Imperial Constitution forbids an estate to be taken, prætorian possession of it will not apply.

13Afri­ca­nus li­bro quin­to quaes­tio­num. Edic­to prae­to­ris bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio his de­ne­ga­tur, qui rei ca­pi­ta­lis dam­na­ti sunt ne­que in in­te­grum re­sti­tu­ti sunt. rei au­tem ca­pi­ta­lis dam­na­tus in­tel­le­gi­tur is, cui poe­na mors aut aquae et ig­nis in­ter­dic­tio sit. cum au­tem in rele­ga­tio­nem quis erit, ad bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem ad­mit­ti­tur.

13Africanus, Questions, Book XV. The possession of property by the Edict of the Prætor is refused to those who have been condemned for a capital crime, unless complete restitution has been granted them. A person is understood to have been condemned for a capital crime upon whom the penalty of death, or the interdiction of water and fire has been imposed. Anyone, however, who has been exiled, can be admitted to the prætorian possession of property.

14Pa­pi­nia­nus li­bro ter­tio de­ci­mo quaes­tio­num. Cum qui­dam pro­pin­quus fal­sum tes­ta­men­tum ac­cu­sa­ret ac post lon­gum spa­tium tem­po­ris pro­bas­set, li­cet dies ei pe­ten­dae pos­ses­sio­nis, quam for­te cer­tus ac­cu­sa­tio­nis pe­te­re de­buit, ces­sis­se vi­de­tur, at­ta­men quia hoc pro­pos­i­to ac­cu­sa­tio­nem in­struit, ut suum ius si­bi ser­vet, ad­gno­vis­se suc­ces­sio­nem non im­me­ri­to vi­de­bi­tur.

14Papinianus, Questions, Book XIII. Where a near relative of the deceased alleges that his will was forged, and proves it after a long period of time, although the time for demanding possession is held to have elapsed, and the plaintiff, being certain of proving his allegations, may have claimed it, still, for the reason that he asserted his claim in order to preserve his rights, it is not unreasonable that he should be considered to have accepted the succession.

15Pau­lus li­bro un­de­ci­mo re­spon­so­rum. Pau­lus re­spon­dit pe­ti­tio­nem ma­tris so­lam non ad­quisis­se fi­liae im­pu­be­ri bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem, ni­si si is qui eam de­dit evi­den­ter vo­luit eam im­pu­be­ri da­re.

15Paulus, Opinions, Book XI. Paulus gave it as his opinion that the application of a mother, alone, could not acquire prætorian possession of an estate for her daughter, who was under the age of puberty, unless he who granted it evidently intended to give it to the minor child.

16Idem li­bro ter­tio sen­ten­tia­rum. Quo­tiens is, cui bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio ab al­te­ro pos­tu­la­ta est, fu­re­re coe­pe­rit, ma­gis pro­ba­tum ra­tum eum vi­de­ri ha­buis­se: ra­ti enim ha­bitio ad con­fir­ma­tio­nem prio­ris pos­tu­la­ti per­ti­net.

16The Same, Sentences, Book III. When the person for whom prætorian possession is demanded subsequently becomes insane, the better opinion is that he will be held to have ratified the act, for a ratification only means the confirmation of a former demand.