1Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXIX. The Prætor says: “I forbid force to be employed to prevent one of you from retaining possession of the houses in question against the other, if you did not acquire possession of them either by violence, clandestinely, or under a precarious title. I will not grant this interdict in cases relating to sewers, or for more than the property is worth; and I will permit proceedings to be instituted within a year from the day on which the party was entitled to do so.” 1This interdict is framed for the benefit of the possessor of land whom the Prætor admits to such possession, and it is prohibitory, so far as the retaining of possession is concerned. 2The reason for the introduction of this interdict is because the possession of property should be distinct from its ownership. For it may happen that someone may be the possessor, but not the owner of the property in dispute, and one may be the owner but not the possessor; and the same person may be both the possessor and the owner. 3Therefore, whenever a controversy with reference to property arises between litigants, or they agree that one of them shall be the possessor and the other the claimant, or no such agreement is made; the result will be as follows. If they come to terms, the matter is at once disposed of, and the one who it is agreed shall hold possession will enjoy the advantages of a possessor, and the other will sustain the burdens of a claimant. If there is any dispute between them as to which one is in possession, because each of them declares that he has the best right to it, then, if the object of the dispute is real property, they must have recourse to this interdict. 4This interdict, commonly called Uti possidetis, is for the purpose of retaining possession; for it is granted to prevent any violence being employed against the party in possession, and hence it is introduced after the interdict Unde vi, for the latter restores possession after it has been lost, and this interdict provides against it being lost. Finally, the Prætor forbids force to be employed against the possessor; hence the former interdict opposes him while the latter one protects him. And, as Pedius says, every controversy having reference to possession either involves the restitution of property to us, of which we are not in possession, or permits us to hold any which we already possess. Proceedings for the recovery of possession are instituted either by means of an interdict, or by another action. Therefore, there are two ways of obtaining possession, that is, by an exception or an interdict. An exception is granted to the party in possession for several reasons. 5The following words are always inserted in this interdict: “If you do not deprive the other party of possession either by violence, clandestinely, or under a precarious title.” 6The interdict called Uti possidetis also protects the possessor of land, for no action is granted him, as it was sufficient for him to be in possession. 7This interdict can also be employed whether anyone alleges that he is in possession of the entire tract of land or only of a certain part of the same, or an undivided portion. 8This interdict is undoubtedly applicable to all cases involving the possession of real property, provided it can be possessed. 9When the Prætor says in the interdict, “where one of you has not deprived the other of possession, either by violence, or clandestinely, or under a precarious title,” this means that if anyone has acquired possession by force, or clandestinely, or under a precarious title from someone else than his adversary, it will be an advantage to him. If, however, he has deprived his adversary of possession, he should not gain his case, for the reason that he has illegally dispossessed him; for it is clear that possession of this kind should not be advantageous.

2Paulus, On the Edict, Book LXV. In the consideration of this interdict, it makes no difference whether the possession is just or unjust, so far as other parties are concerned; for he who is in possession, through this very fact, has a better right than he who does not occupy the property.

3Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book LXIX. Where two parties are in possession of the entire property, let us see what opinion must be rendered. Let us examine how this can occur. If anyone should suggest a case where one of them holds possession justly, and the other unjustly; for instance, if I possess the property by a legal title, and you have obtained it by violence, or clandestinely, and you have deprived me of possession, I shall have the preference for the interdict; but if you have not obtained possession from me, neither of us will have the advantage, for both you and I are in possession. 1This interdict is twofold, and lies in favor of both plaintiffs and defendants. 2This interdict is sufficient for a person who is prevented from building on his own land, for you are held to interfere with my possession, if you prevent me from using it. 3If a tenant prevents an owner from repairing his house, it has been decided that the interdict Uti possidetis will lie where the owner states, in the presence of witnesses, that he does not intend to hinder the tenant from living in the house, but he does not wish him to be considered in possession of it. 4Moreover, let us see what the law is, if the agent of your neighbor transplants vines from your land to his own. Pomponius says that you can serve notice upon him, and cut the vines, and Labeo says the same thing. He also says that you can make use of the interdict Uti possidetis with reference to the place where the vines have taken root, since if he should employ violence to hinder you from cutting or removing the vines, he will be considered to have forcibly prevented you from taking possession; for Pomponius holds that anyone who prevents another from cultivating his own land prevents him from retaining possession of the same. 5Again, where something is projected by one neighbor over the land of another, and this is alleged to have been done without any right, let us see whether the interdict Uti possidetis will be available for one of them against the other. It is stated by Cassius that neither of them can employ it, because one of them possesses the land, and the other the surface with the building upon it. 6Labeo also says: “Part of my house projects over yours. Can you make use of the interdict against me if we both possess the place which is covered by the projection? Or can I employ the interdict against you, in order the more readily to obtain possession of the projection, as you now are in possession of the house, a part of which constitutes the said projection?” 7Ad Dig. 43,17,3,7Windscheid: Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 7. Aufl. 1891, Bd. I, § 154, Note 7; Bd. I, § 223, Note 2.But if, above the house of which I am in possession, there is an apartment in which another person resides as the owner, Labeo says that I, and not he who resides in the said apartment, can make use of the interdict Uti possidetis, for the reason that whatever is built upon the soil always forms a portion of it. Labeo says that it is clear that if the apartment has a public entrance, the owner of the lower portion of the house is not in possession of it, but it will be possessed by him who has the entrance from the street. This is true with reference to an apartment with a public entrance. But parties in possession of buildings upon land are entitled to the special interdict and actions granted by the Prætor. The owner of the ground, however, is preferred in the case of an interdict Uti possidetis, not only against the person who has the building, but also against everyone else. Still, the Prætor will, in accordance with the terms of the lease, protect him who has a right to the building. Pomponius also adopts this opinion. 8Creditors who have been placed in possession for the preservation of property cannot avail themselves of the interdict Uti possidetis; and this is reasonable, because they are not actually in possession. It must be said that the same rule applies to all others who have been given possession as custodians of the property. 9If my neighbor causes his roof to project over my house, I can avail myself of the interdict Uti possidetis to compel him to remove it. 10I am not considered to hold possession by violence if I have obtained a tract of land from a person who acquired the same by taking forcible possession of it. 11In this interdict, a judgment is rendered for a sum equal to the appraised value of the property. We must understand the words, “to the amount that the property is worth,” to mean the interest which the party had in retaining possession. It is, however, the opinion of Servius, that the value of the possession should be estimated to be as much as that of the property; but this ought, by no means, to be conceded, for the value of the property is one thing, and that of possession is another.

4The Same, On the Edict, Book LXX. In conclusion, I think that it must be said that this interdict ought to be granted among usufructuaries, even if one of them claims the usufruct, and the other the possession. The same rule should be adopted where anyone alleges that he is in possession of the usufruct. This is also held by Pomponius. Hence this interdict should also be granted where one person claims the use and another the usufruct of the same property.