- Source
- Digesta Iustiniani Augusti. Mommsen, Theodor & Krueger, Paul, editors. Berlin: Weidmann, 1870.
- Translation
- AI-generated (gemini-3.5-flash) — machine translation; may contain errors
- Languages
- 日本語 · English · 简体中文 · 한국어
- CTS URN
- urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:5.3.13.pr-5.3.13.15
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-11
The defendant's standing in the petition for inheritance is discussed in detail, analyzing the liabilities of unlawful possessors, those possessing 'as possessor' without title, purchasers, trustees, representative possessors, fraudulent non-possessors, and possessors of rights (debtors).
[IDEM libro quinto decimo ad edictum.]
[THE SAME, in the fifteenth book on the Edict.]
nec ullam causam possessionis possit dicere: et ideo fur et raptor petitione hereditatis tenentur.
and cannot state any cause of his possession; and therefore, the thief and the robber are held liable by the petition for inheritance.
Omnibus etiam titulis hic pro possessore haeret et quasi iniunctus est.1 denique et pro emptore titulo haeret: nam si a furioso emero sciens, pro possessore possideo. item in titulo pro donato quaeritur, an quis pro possessore possideat, ut puta uxor uel maritus: et placet nobis Iuliani sententia pro possessore possidere eum, et ideo petitione hereditatis tenebitur. item pro dote titulus recipit pro possessore possessionem, ut puta si a minore duodecim annis nupta mihi quasi dotem sciens accepi. et si legatum mihi solutum est ex falsa causa scienti, utique pro possessore possidebo.
Also, in all titles, this ‘pro possessore’ is attached and, as it were, joined. Finally, it is also attached to the title ‘pro emptore’; for if I knowingly purchase from a madman, I possess ‘pro possessore’. Likewise, under the title ‘pro donato’, it is asked whether anyone possesses ‘pro possessore’, as for example, a wife or a husband; and we approve Julian’s opinion that such a person possesses ‘pro possessore’, and therefore they will be held liable by the petition for inheritance. Likewise, the title ‘pro dote’ admits possession ‘pro possessore’, as for example, if I knowingly accepted as a dowry something from a bride under twelve years of age. And if a legacy is paid to me on a false ground and I know it, I shall certainly possess ‘pro possessore’.
Is autem qui restituit hereditatem teneri hereditatis petitione non potest, nisi dolo fecit, id est si scit et restituit: nam et dolus praeteritus uenit in hereditatis petitione, quasi dolo desierit possidere.
However, he who has restored the inheritance cannot be held liable by the petition for inheritance, unless he acted with fraud, that is, if he knows and restores it; for past fraud also comes into the petition for inheritance, as if he ceased to possess through fraud.
Neratius libro sexto membranarum scribit ab herede peti hereditatem posse etiam si ignoret pro herede uel pro possessore defunctum possedisse. idem esse libro septimo ait etiam si putauit heres eas res ex hac hereditate esse quae sibi delata est.
Neratius writes in the sixth book of his Parchments that the inheritance can be claimed from the heir even if he is ignorant that the deceased possessed it ‘pro herede’ or ‘pro possessore’. In the seventh book, he says that the same applies even if the heir thought those things belonged to the inheritance which had been deferred to him.
Quid si quis hereditatem emerit, an utilis in eum petitio hereditatis deberet dari, ne singulis iudiciis uexaretur? uenditorem enim teneri certum est: sed finge non extare uenditorem uel modico uendidisse et bonae fidei possessorem fuisse: an porrigi manus ad emptorem debeant? et putat Gaius Cassius dandam utilem actionem.
What if someone has purchased an inheritance? Should a useful petition for inheritance be granted against him, lest he be harassed by individual trials? For it is certain that the seller is held liable. But imagine that the seller does not exist, or sold it for a modest price and was a possessor in good faith: should hands be stretched out to the purchaser? And Gaius Cassius thinks that the useful action should be granted.
Idem erit dicendum et si paruo pretio iussus uendere heres Titio hereditatem uendidit: nam putat dicendum Papinianus aduersus fideicommissarium dari actionem: ab herede enim peti non expedit perexiguum pretium habente.2
The same must be said if the heir, being ordered to sell at a low price, sold the inheritance to Titius; for Papinian thinks it should be said that an action is granted against the fideicommissary, since it is not expedient to claim from the heir who has only a very small price.
Sed et si retenta certa quantitate restituere rogatus sit, idem erit dicendum. plane si accepta certa quantitate restituere rogatus est, non putat Papinianus ab herede petendam hereditatem, quoniam pro herede, quod condicionis implendae gratia accepit, non possidetur. sed Sabinus in statulibero contra: et id uerius est, quia pecunia hereditaria est.
But even if he is requested to restore it while retaining a certain quantity, the same must be said. Clearly, if he is requested to restore it upon receiving a certain quantity, Papinian does not think that the inheritance should be claimed from the heir, since that which he received for the sake of fulfilling a condition is not possessed ‘pro herede’. But Sabinus held the contrary in the case of a statuliber, and that is more correct, because the money is hereditary.
Idem et in eo qui solos fructus ex hereditate retinet, dicendum erit: tenetur enim et is hereditatis petitione.
The same must also be said of him who retains only the fruits from the inheritance; for he too is held liable by the petition for inheritance.
Si quis sciens alienam emit hereditatem, quasi pro possessore possidet: et sic peti ab eo hereditatem quidam putant. quam sententiam non puto ueram: nemo enim praedo est qui pretium numerauit: sed ut emptor uniuersitatis utili tenetur.
If anyone knowingly purchases another’s inheritance, he possesses, as it were, ‘pro possessore’; and thus some think that the inheritance can be claimed from him. I do not think this opinion is true; for no one is a robber who has paid the price; rather, he is held liable by a useful action as a purchaser of the entirety.
Item si quis a fisco hereditatem quasi uacantem emerit, aequissimum erit utilem actionem aduersus eum dari.
Likewise, if anyone purchases an inheritance from the treasury as if it were vacant, it will be most equitable for a useful action to be granted against him.
Apud Marcellum libro quarto digestorum relatum est, si mulier hereditatem in dotem dedit, maritum pro dote quidem possidere hereditatem, sed petitione hereditatis utili teneri: sed et ipsam mulierem directa teneri Marcellus scribit, maxime si iam factum diuortium est.
It is reported in the fourth book of Marcellus’s Digests that if a woman gave an inheritance as a dowry, the husband indeed possesses the inheritance ‘pro dote’, but is held liable by a useful petition for inheritance; but Marcellus also writes that the woman herself is held liable by a direct action, especially if a divorce has already taken place.
Heredem autem etiam earum rerum nomine, quas defunctus pro emptore possedit, hereditatis petitione teneri constat, quasi pro herede possideat: quamuis etiam earum rerum nomine, quas pro herede uel pro possessore defunctus possedit, utique teneatur.
Moreover, it is clear that the heir is held liable by the petition for inheritance even in respect of those things which the deceased possessed ‘pro emptore’, as if he himself possessed them ‘pro herede’; although he is certainly held liable also in respect of those things which the deceased possessed ‘pro herede’ or ‘pro possessore’.
Si quis absentis nomine possideat hereditatem, cum sit incertum an ille ratum habeat, puto absentis nomine petendam hereditatem, ipsius uero nequaquam, quia non uidetur pro herede uel pro possessore possidere, qui contemplatione alterius possidet: nisi forte quis dixerit, cum ratum non habet, iam procuratorem quasi praedonem esse: tunc enim suo nomine teneri potest.
If anyone possesses an inheritance in the name of an absent person, while it is uncertain whether that person will ratify it, I think that the inheritance should be claimed in the name of the absent person, but by no means against the possessor himself, because he who possesses for the sake of another is not deemed to possess ‘pro herede’ or ‘pro possessore’; unless perhaps someone should say that when the absent person does not ratify it, the agent is already, as it were, a robber; for then he can be held liable in his own name.
Non solum autem ab eo peti hereditas potest, qui corpus hereditarium possidet, sed et si nihil.3 et uidendum, si non possidens optulerit tamen se petitioni, an teneatur. et Celsus libro quarto digestorum scribit ex dolo eum teneri: dolo enim facere eum qui se offert petitioni. quam sententiam generaliter Marcellus apud Iulianum probat: omnem, qui se offert petitioni, quasi possidentem teneri.
Moreover, the inheritance can be claimed not only from him who possesses the hereditary body, but also if he possesses nothing. And it must be seen whether he is held liable if, not possessing, he nevertheless offers himself to the petition. And Celsus writes in the fourth book of his Digests that he is held liable on the ground of fraud; for he who offers himself to the petition acts with fraud. Marcellus, in his commentary on Julian, generally approves this opinion: that everyone who offers himself to the petition is held liable as if possessing.
Item si quis dolo fecerit, quo minus possideat,4 hereditatis petitione tenebitur. sed si alius nanctus possessionem, quam ego dolo malo amiseram, paratus sit iudicium pati, Marcellus libro quarto digestorum tractat, ne forte euanescat aduersus eum qui desiit litis aestimatio: et magis euanescere ait, nisi petentis interest: certe, inquit, si rem paratus sit restituere, indubitatum erit euanescere. sed si is qui dolo desiit ante conueniatur, eum qui possidet non liberabit.
Likewise, if anyone acts with fraud so as not to possess, he will be held liable by the petition for inheritance. But if another person, having obtained the possession which I had lost through fraud, is prepared to undergo trial, Marcellus discusses in the fourth book of his Digests whether the valuation of the suit against him who ceased to possess might vanish; and he says that it rather vanishes, unless it is in the interest of the claimant; certainly, he says, if the person is prepared to restore the thing, it is beyond doubt that it vanishes. But if he who ceased to possess through fraud is sued first, it will not release the one who possesses.
Item a debitore hereditario quasi a iuris possessore: nam et a iuris possessoribus posse hereditatem peti constat.
Likewise, against a hereditary debtor, as if against a possessor of a right; for it is clear that the inheritance can be claimed also from possessors of a right.
- 5.3.13.1Omnibus etiam titulis hic pro possessore haeret et quasi iniunctus est.
The phrase 'pro possessore' (as possessor) refers to a state of wrongful possession without a valid legal title. Here, it is explained that whenever a specific title (such as buyer or donee) loses its validity due to a defect, it is subsumed under the general category of 'pro possessore', carrying the corresponding liabilities.
- 5.3.13.5perexiguum pretium habente
This participle phrase in the ablative case agrees with the preceding 'herede'. It states the reason why it is not appropriate to sue the heir directly, as the heir, having been ordered to sell at a very low price, possesses or retained only a highly negligible amount of the proceeds.
- 5.3.13.13sed et si nihil
An elliptical clause where the verb 'possideat' is understood: 'but even if [he possesses] nothing'. This leads to the discussion on the liability of a person who has no physical possession but nevertheless offers himself to the lawsuit.
- 5.3.13.14quo minus possideat
A construction using 'quo minus' with the subjunctive, meaning 'to prevent oneself from possessing' or 'acting with fraud so as not to possess', describing an intentional act to evade or divest oneself of possession.