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. XXXVIII6,
Si tabulae testamenti nullae extabunt, unde liberi
Liber trigesimus octavus
VI.

Si tabulae testamenti nullae extabunt, unde liberi

(Where no Will is in Existence by Which Children May be Benefited.)

1Ul­pia­nus li­bro qua­dra­gen­si­mo quar­to ad edic­tum. Post­ea­quam prae­tor lo­cu­tus est de bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­ne eius qui tes­ta­tus est, trans­itum fe­cit ad in­tes­ta­tos, eum or­di­nem se­cu­tus, quem et lex duo­de­cim ta­bu­la­rum se­cu­ta est: fuit enim or­di­na­rium an­te de iu­di­ciis tes­tan­tium, de­in sic de suc­ces­sio­ne ab in­tes­ta­to lo­qui. 1Sed suc­ces­sio­nem ab in­tes­ta­to in plu­res par­tes di­vi­sit: fe­cit enim gra­dus va­rios, pri­mum li­be­ro­rum, se­cun­dum le­gi­ti­mo­rum, ter­tium co­gna­to­rum, de­in­de vi­ri et uxo­ris. 2Ita au­tem ab in­tes­ta­to pot­est com­pe­te­re bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio, si ne­que se­cun­dum ta­bu­las ne­que con­tra ta­bu­las bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio agni­ta sit. 3Pla­ne si tem­po­ra qui­dem pe­ten­dae bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nis ex tes­ta­men­to lar­gie­ban­tur, ve­rum­ta­men re­pu­dia­ta est bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio, di­cen­dum erit ab in­tes­ta­to bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem iam in­ci­pe­re: cum enim is qui re­pu­dia­vit pe­te­re bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem non pot­est post re­pu­dia­tio­nem, con­se­quens erit, ut ab in­tes­ta­to pos­se pe­ti in­ci­piat. 4Sed et si ex Car­bo­nia­no edic­to bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio da­ta sit, ma­gis est, ut di­ce­re de­bea­mus ab in­tes­ta­to ni­hi­lo mi­nus pos­se pe­ti: ut enim suo lo­co os­ten­di­mus, non im­pe­dit bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem edic­ta­lem Car­bo­nia­na bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio. 5Rec­te au­tem prae­tor a li­be­ris in­itium fe­cit ab in­tes­ta­to suc­ces­sio­nis, ut, sic­uti con­tra ta­bu­las ip­sis de­fert, ita et ab in­tes­ta­to ip­sos vo­cet. 6Li­be­ros au­tem ac­ci­pe­re de­be­mus quos ad con­tra ta­bu­las bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem ad­mit­ten­dos di­xi­mus, tam na­tu­ra­les quam ad­op­ti­vos. sed ad­op­ti­vos hac­te­nus ad­mit­ti­mus, si fue­rint in po­tes­ta­te: ce­te­rum si sui iu­ris fue­rint, ad bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem non in­vi­tan­tur, quia ad­op­tio­nis iu­ra dis­so­lu­ta sunt em­an­ci­pa­tio­ne. 7Si quis fi­lium suum em­an­ci­pa­tum in lo­cum ne­po­tis ad­op­ta­vit et em­an­ci­pa­vit, cum ha­be­ret et ne­po­tem ex eo, quae­si­tum est apud Mar­cel­lum, an ad­op­tio re­scis­sa im­pe­diat ne­po­tem. sed cum so­leat em­an­ci­pa­to pa­tri iun­gi ne­pos, quis non di­cat, et­si ad­op­ta­tus sit et qua­si fi­lius, ni­hi­lo mi­nus fi­lio suo eum non ob­sta­re, quia qua­si fi­lius ad­op­ti­vus est in po­tes­ta­te, non qua­si na­tu­ra­lis? 8Si he­res in­sti­tu­tus non ha­beat vo­lun­ta­tem, vel quia in­ci­sae sunt ta­bu­lae vel quia can­cel­la­tae vel quia alia ra­tio­ne vo­lun­ta­tem tes­ta­tor mu­ta­vit vo­luit­que in­tes­ta­to de­ce­de­re, di­cen­dum est ab in­tes­ta­to rem ha­bi­tu­ros eos, qui bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem ac­ce­pe­runt. 9Si em­an­ci­pa­tus fi­lius ex­he­res fue­rit, is au­tem qui in po­tes­ta­te fue­rat prae­ter­itus, em­an­ci­pa­tum pe­ten­tem ab in­tes­ta­to bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem un­de li­be­ri tue­ri de­bet prae­tor us­que ad par­tem di­mi­diam, per­in­de at­que si nul­las ta­bu­las pa­ter re­li­quis­set.

1Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XLIV. The Prætor, after speaking of the possession of the property of those who execute wills, passes to intestate estates, following the same order adopted by the Law of the Twelve Tables; for it is usual to first treat of the wills of testators, and afterwards of intestate succession. 1The Prætor, however, divided intestate succession into four classes. Of the various degrees, the first he establishes is that of children, the second that of heirs at law, the third of cognates, and the fourth of husband and wife. 2Prætorian possession of an estate ab intestato can only be acquired where no one appears to demand possession in accordance with the provisions of the will, or in opposition thereto. 3It is clear that if the prescribed time for demanding prætorian possession of an estate in accordance with the terms of the will has not expired, but possession of the estate has been rejected, it must be said that prætorian possession of the same ab intestato may be demanded at once. For he who rejected the estate cannot demand prætorian possession after having done so, and the result will be that he can immediately make the claim for possession on the ground of intestacy. 4If, however, possession of an estate is granted under the Carbonian Edict, the better opinion is for us to hold that prætorian possession on the ground of intestacy can still be demanded, for, as we shall show in its proper place, prætorian possession under the Carbonian Edict does not interfere with that obtained by the Prætorian Edict. 5In the case of succession ab intestato, the Prætor very properly begins with the descendants; for, just as he grants them (before all others), possession contrary to the provisions of the will, so he calls them first to the succession in case of intestacy. 6Moreover, we must understand the term “descendants” to mean those whom we have stated to be entitled to prætorian possession contrary to the provisions of the will; that is to say, natural, as well as adopted children. We admit adopted children, however, only where they were under paternal control, at the time of their father’s death. If, however, they were their own masters at that time, we do not permit them to obtain prætorian possession of the estate, because the rights of adoption are extinguished by emancipation. 7If anyone adopts his emancipated son, instead of his grandson, and then again emancipates him while he has a grandson by him, the question was raised by Marcellus whether, after the adoption was rescinded, this would be an obstacle to the grandson desiring to obtain prætorian possession on the ground of intestacy. But as the grandson is ordinarily joined with the emancipated father, cannot it be said that, though the latter was adopted and occupied the place of a son, still, he should not stand in the way of his own child? For the reason that he was under paternal control as an adopted, and not as a natural son. 8Ad Dig. 38,6,1,8Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. III, § 564, Note 7.If an appointed heir cannot take advantage of the will, either because it has been erased or cancelled, or because the testator is shown to have changed his mind in some other way, and that he intended to die intestate, it must be said that those who obtain prætorian possession of the estate will be entitled to it on the ground of intestacy. 9Where an emancipated son is disinherited, and a son who was under paternal control is passed over in the will, the Prætor should protect the emancipated son who claims possession of the estate on the ground of intestacy under the provision unde liberi, so far as half of the estate is concerned, just as if the father had left no will.

2Iu­lia­nus li­bro vi­cen­si­mo sep­ti­mo di­ges­to­rum. Em­an­ci­pa­tus prae­ter­itus si con­tra ta­bu­las bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem non ac­ce­pe­rit et scrip­ti he­redes ad­ie­rint he­redi­ta­tem, sua cul­pa amit­tit pa­ter­nam he­redi­ta­tem: nam quam­vis se­cun­dum ta­bu­las bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio pe­ti­ta non fue­rit, non ta­men eum prae­tor tue­tur, ut bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem ac­ci­piat un­de li­be­ri. nam et pa­tro­num prae­ter­itum, si non pe­tat con­tra ta­bu­las bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem, ex il­la par­te edic­ti, un­de le­gi­ti­mi vo­can­tur, non so­let tue­ri prae­tor ad­ver­sus scrip­tos he­redes.

2Julianus, Digest, Book XXVII. Where an emancipated son, who was passed over, does not demand prætorian possession of the estate contrary to the provisions of the will, and the appointed heirs enter upon the estate, he will lose his father’s estate by his own fault, for although prætorian possession in accordance with the provisions of the will may not have been demanded, the Prætor still will not protect him so as to enable him to obtain prætorian possession as a descendant. The Prætor is not accustomed to protect a patron who has been passed over in the will against the appointed heirs, if he does not demand prætorian possession of the estate contrary to the provisions of the will, under that Section of the Edict which refers to heirs at law.

3Ul­pia­nus li­bro oc­ta­vo ad Sa­binum. Bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio pot­est pe­ti ab in­tes­ta­to, si cer­tum sit ta­bu­las non ex­ta­re sep­tem tes­tium sig­nis sig­na­tas.

3Ulpiamis, On Sabinus, Book VIII. Prætorian possession of an estate can be demanded on the ground of intestacy, when it is certain that the will has not been signed by at least seven witnesses.

4Pau­lus li­bro se­cun­do ad Sa­binum. Li­be­ri et ca­pi­te mi­nu­ti per edic­tum prae­to­ris ad bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem vo­can­tur pa­ren­tium, ni­si si ad­op­ti­vi fue­rint: hi enim et li­be­ro­rum no­men amit­tunt post em­an­ci­pa­tio­nem. sed si na­tu­ra­les em­an­ci­pa­ti et ad­op­ta­ti ite­rum em­an­ci­pa­ti sint, ha­bent ius na­tu­ra­le li­be­ro­rum.

4Paulus, On Sabinus, Book II. Children, even those who have lost their civil rights, are called to the possession of an estate under the Edict of the Prætor, unless they have been adopted, for the latter lose the name of children after emancipation. If, however, they are natural children, and have been emancipated and adopted, and emancipated a second time, they retain their original character of natural children.

5Pom­po­nius li­bro quar­to ad Sa­binum. Si quis ex his, qui­bus bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem prae­tor pol­li­ce­tur, in po­tes­ta­te pa­ren­tis, de cu­ius bo­nis agi­tur, cum is mo­ri­tur, non fue­rit, ei li­be­ris­que, quos in eius­dem fa­mi­lia ha­be­bit, si ad eos he­redi­tas suo no­mi­ne per­ti­ne­bit ne­que no­mi­na­tim ex­he­redes scrip­ti erunt, bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio eius par­tis da­tur, quae ad eum per­ti­ne­ret, si in po­tes­ta­te per­man­sis­set, ita, ut ex ea par­te di­mi­diam ha­beat, re­li­quum li­be­ri eius, his­que dum­ta­xat bo­na sua con­fe­rat. 1Sed et si fi­lium et ne­po­tem ex eo pa­ter em­an­ci­pa­ve­rit, fi­lius so­lus ve­niet ad bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem, quam­vis ca­pi­tis de­mi­nutio per edic­tum nul­li ob­stet. quin et­iam hi quo­que, qui in po­tes­ta­te num­quam fue­runt nec sui he­redis lo­cum op­ti­nue­runt, vo­can­tur ad bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem pa­ren­tium. nam si fi­lius em­an­ci­pa­tus re­li­que­rit in po­tes­ta­te avi ne­po­tem, da­bi­tur ei, qui in po­tes­ta­te re­lic­tus sit, pa­tris em­an­ci­pa­ti bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio: et si post em­an­ci­pa­tio­nem pro­crea­ve­rit, ita na­to da­bi­tur avi bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio, sci­li­cet non ob­stan­te ei pa­tre suo. 2Si fi­lius em­an­ci­pa­tus non pe­tie­rit bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem, ita in­te­gra sunt om­nia ne­po­ti­bus, at­que si fi­lius non fuis­set, ut quod fi­lius ha­bi­tu­rus es­set pe­ti­ta bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­ne, hoc ne­po­ti­bus ex eo so­lis, non et­iam re­li­quis ad­cres­cat.

5Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book IV. Where one of those children to whom the Prætor promises the possession of an estate is not under the control of the parent whose property was in dispute at the time of his death, the possession of that share of the estate to which he would have been entitled if he had remained under paternal control is granted to him, and to his children who were under the control of the deceased, if the estate belonged to him in his own name and they were not specifically disinherited; so that he himself will only have half of said share, and the other half will be given to his children, and he can distribute his own property among them alone, without any restriction. 1If a father should emancipate his son and his grandson by the latter, the son alone will be entitled to the possession of his estate on the ground of intestacy, although the loss of civil rights would not be an obstacle to anyone in distributing the estate under the Edict. Moreover, those children who have never been under paternal control, and have not obtained the place of proper heirs, are called to the prætorian possession of the estate of their parents; for if an emancipated son should leave a grandson under the control of his grandfather, prætorian possession of the estate of the emancipated father shall be given to the child who remains under the control of his grandfather; and, if the latter should have been begotten after the emancipation of his father, prætorian possession of the estate of his grandfather will be given to him after his birth; provided the condition of his father offers no obstacle to this being done. 2If an emancipated son should not demand prætorian possession of an estate on the ground of intestacy, all of the rights of the grandsons will remain unimpaired, just as if there had been no son; and what the son would have been entitled to if he had demanded prætorian possession of the estate of his father on the ground of intestacy will accrue to the grandsons alone who are descendants of the said son, and not to any others.

6Ul­pia­nus li­bro tri­gen­si­mo no­no ad edic­tum. Si pa­ter fi­lium em­an­ci­pa­ve­rit, ne­po­tem re­ti­nue­rit, de­in­de fi­lius de­ces­se­rit: et rei ae­qui­tas et cau­sa edic­ti, quo de bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­ne li­be­ris dan­da ca­ve­tur, ef­fi­cit, ut eius ra­tio ha­bea­tur et bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio in­tes­ta­to pa­tris de­tur, ut ta­men bo­na so­ro­ri, quae ne­ces­sa­ria he­res pa­tri ex­ti­tit, con­fer­re co­ga­tur avus, qui per eum bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nis emo­lu­men­tum ad­quisi­tu­rus est: ni­si for­te avus is­te nul­lum ex his fruc­tum ad­quire­re vult pa­ra­tus­que est de po­tes­ta­te ne­po­tem demit­te­re, ut ad em­an­ci­pa­tum emo­lu­men­tum om­ne bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nis per­ve­niat. nec id­cir­co so­ror, quae pa­tri he­res ex­ti­tit, ius­te que­ri pot­erit, quod eo fac­to a col­la­tio­nis com­mo­do ex­clu­di­tur, cum avo quan­do­que in­tes­ta­to de­func­to ad bo­na eius si­mul cum fra­tre pos­sit venire.

6Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXXIX. If a father should emancipate his son, retaining his grandson under his control, and his son should afterwards die, both the equity of the case and the terms of the Edict by which it is provided that prætorian possession of the estate of a father shall be granted to his children, on the ground of intestacy, will have the effect of causing an account to be taken, and the possession of the estate of the intestate father to be delivered; so that the grandfather who will obtain the benefit of prætorian possession of the estate through his grandson will be compelled to make contribution to a sister who becomes her father’s necessary heir; unless the grandfather should not wish to obtain any benefit from the property, and is ready to release his grandson from his control in order that, after his emancipation, he may obtain all the advantages of prætorian possession. Therefore, the sister, who becomes the heir of her father, cannot justly complain of being in this way excluded from the benefit of contribution; since, if her grandfather sliould die intestate, she will be entitled to share equally with her brother in his estate.

7Pa­pi­nia­nus li­bro vi­cen­si­mo no­no quaes­tio­num. Scrip­to he­rede de­li­be­ran­te fi­lius ex­he­redatus mor­tem ob­it at­que ita scrip­tus he­res omi­sit he­redi­ta­tem. ne­pos ex il­lo fi­lio sus­cep­tus avo suus he­res erit ne­que pa­ter vi­de­bi­tur ob­sti­tis­se, cu­ius post mor­tem le­gi­ti­ma de­fer­tur he­redi­tas. nec di­ci pot­est he­redem, sed non suum ne­po­tem fo­re, quod pro­xi­mum gra­dum num­quam te­nue­rit, cum et ip­se fue­rit in po­tes­ta­te ne­que pa­ter eum in hac suc­ces­sio­ne prae­ve­ne­rit. et alio­quin si non suus he­res est, quo iu­re he­res erit, qui si­ne du­bio non est ad­gna­tus? ce­te­rum et si non sit ex­he­redatus ne­pos, ad­iri pot­erit ex tes­ta­men­to he­redi­tas a scrip­to he­rede fi­lio mor­tuo: qua­re qui non ob­stat iu­re in­tes­ta­ti, iu­re tes­ta­ti vi­de­bi­tur ob­sti­tis­se. 1Non sic pa­ren­ti­bus li­be­ro­rum, ut li­be­ris pa­ren­tium de­be­tur he­redi­tas: pa­ren­tes ad bo­na li­be­ro­rum ra­tio mi­se­ra­tio­nis ad­mit­tit, li­be­ros na­tu­rae, si­mul et pa­ren­tium com­mu­ne vo­tum.

7Papinianus, Questions, Book XXIX. A disinherited son died while the testamentary heir was deliberating whether or not he would accept the estate, and he finally rejected it. The grandson, by the said disinherited son, will be the heir of his grandfather, nor will his father be considered as an obstacle to this, since it was after his death that the estate came to the grandson as heir at law. It cannot be said that the grandson is the heir, but not the direct heir, of his grandfather, because he was never in the first degree; as he himself was under the control of his grandfather, and his father did not precede him in the succession. And, besides, if he was not a direct heir, under what right will he be the heir, as there was no doubt that he was not an agnate? Moreover, even if the grandson should not be disinherited, the estate can be entered upon by the testamentary heir after the death of the son. Therefore, if the father was no obstacle to the son by the right of intestacy, he will be considered to have been an obstacle under the right conferred by the will. 1Parents are not entitled to the estates of their children in the same manner as children are entitled to the estates of their parents. It is only the consideration of compassion which entitles parents to the estates of their children, but children obtain those of their parents on account of the intention of nature, as well as that of their parents.

8Idem li­bro sex­to re­spon­so­rum. Fi­lius fa­mi­lias ut pro­xi­mus co­gna­tus pa­tre con­sen­tien­te pos­ses­sio­nem ad­gno­vit: quam­vis per con­di­cio­nem tes­ta­men­to da­tam, quod in pa­tris po­tes­ta­te man­se­rit, ab he­redi­ta­te sit ex­clu­sus, ta­men uti­li­ter pos­ses­sio­nem ad­gno­vis­se vi­de­bi­tur nec in edic­ti sen­ten­tiam in­ci­det, quon­iam pos­ses­sio­nem se­cun­dum ta­bu­las non ad­gno­vit, cum in­de rem ha­be­re non pot­erit nec in fi­lii po­tes­ta­te con­di­cio fue­rit nec fa­ci­le pa­ter em­an­ci­pa­re fi­lium co­gi pot­erit.

8The Same, Opinions, Book VI. A son under paternal control, with the consent of his father, took prætorian possession of an estate as the next of kin to the deceased. Although he should be excluded from the estate by the condition stated in the will, if he remained under the control of his father, still he must be considered to have obtained possession legally. He is not liable to the penalty of the Edict, as he did not obtain possession in accordance with the provisions of the will; as in that way he could not hold the property, nor was it in his power to comply with the condition, as a father cannot easily be forced to emancipate his son.

9Pau­lus li­bro un­de­ci­mo re­spon­so­rum. Si post­ea, quam fi­lius em­an­ci­pa­tus bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem pa­tris pe­tit, sta­tum suum mu­ta­vit, ni­hil ob­es­se ei, quo mi­nus id quod ad­quisiit re­ti­neat: quod si prius con­di­cio­nem suam mu­ta­vit, bo­no­rum pos­ses­sio­nem eum pe­te­re non pos­se.

9Paulus, Opinions, Book XI. If a son, after having been emancipated, demands prætorian possession of the estate of his father, and subsequently changes his condition, there is no reason why he should not retain what he has acquired. If, however, he had changed his condition beforehand, he cannot demand prætorian possession of the estate.