[PAULUS libro quadragesimo quarto ad edictum. ] §22.6.1.prIgnorantia uel facti uel iuris est.
[PAULUS, in his forty-fourth book on the Edict.] Ignorance is either of fact or of law.
§22.6.1.1Nam si quis nesciat decessisse eum, cuius bonorum possessio defertur, non cedit ei tempus: sed si sciat quidem defunctum esse cognatum, nesciat autem proximitatis nomine bonorum possessionem sibi deferri, aut se sciat scriptum heredem, nesciat autem quod scriptis heredibus bonorum possessionem praetor promittit, cedit ei tempus, quia in iure errat.
For if someone does not know that the person has deceased, whose estate possession is being offered, time does not run against him; but if he indeed knows that his kinsman is deceased, but does not know that estate possession is offered to him on the ground of proximity, or if he knows that he has been appointed heir in the will, but does not know that the praetor promises estate possession to appointed heirs, time does run against him, because he errs in law.
idem est, si frater consanguineus defuncti credat matrem potiorem esse.
The same applies if a consanguineous brother of the deceased believes that the mother has priority.
§22.6.1.2Si quis nesciat se cognatum esse, interdum in iure, interdum in facto errat.
If someone does not know that he is a kinsman, he sometimes errs in law, and sometimes in fact.
nam si et liberum se esse et ex quibus natus sit sciat, iura autem cognationis habere se nesciat, in iure errat: at si quis (forte expositus) quorum parentium esset ignoret, fortasse et seruiat alicui putans se seruum esse, in facto magis quam in iure errat.
For if he knows both that he is free and from whom he was born, but does not know that he has the rights of kinship, he errs in law. But if someone (for example, an exposed child) does not know who his parents are, and perhaps even serves someone thinking himself to be a slave, he errs in fact rather than in law.
§22.6.1.3Item si quis sciat quidem alii delatam esse bonorum possessionem, nesciat autem ei tempus praeterisse bonorum possessionis, in facto errat.
Likewise, if someone indeed knows that estate possession has been offered to another, but does not know that the time for estate possession has expired for that person, he errs in fact.
idem est si putet eum bonorum possessionem accepisse.
The same is true if he thinks that the other person has accepted the estate possession.
sed si sciat eum non petisse tempusque ei praeterisse, ignoret autem sibi ex successorio capite competere bonorum possessionem, cedet ei tempus, quia in iure errat.
But if he knows that the other person did not petition for it and that the time has expired for him, but does not know that the estate possession belongs to him under the section on succession, time will run against him, because he errs in law.
§22.6.1.4Idem dicemus, si ex asse heres institutus non putet se bonorum possessionem petere posse ante apertas tabulas: quod si nesciat esse tabulas, in facto errat.
We shall say the same if an heir appointed to the entire estate does not think that he can petition for estate possession before the will is opened; but if he does not know that there is a will, he errs in fact.