[ULPIANUS libro quadragensimo quarto ad edictum. ] §38.6.1.prPosteaquam 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.
[ULPIANUS in the forty-fourth book on the Edict.] After the praetor has spoken of the possession of goods of a person who died testate, he made a transition to intestate succession, following that order which the Law of the Twelve Tables also followed; for it was customary to speak first of the decisions of testators, and then in this manner of succession from an intestate.
§38.6.1.1Sed successionem ab intestato in plures partes diuisit: fecit enim gradus uarios, primum liberorum, secundum legitimorum, tertium cognatorum, deinde uiri et uxoris.
But he divided intestate succession into several parts; for he established various degrees: first, that of children; second, that of statutory heirs; third, that of cognates; and then, that of husband and wife.
§38.6.1.2Ita autem ab intestato potest competere bonorum possessio, si neque secundum tabulas neque contra tabulas bonorum possessio agnita sit.
Now, the possession of goods from an intestate can only be competent if the possession of goods has been acknowledged neither in accordance with the tablet of the will nor contrary to the tablet of the will.
§38.6.1.3Plane si tempora quidem petendae bonorum possessionis ex testamento largiebantur, uerumtamen repudiata est bonorum possessio, dicendum erit ab intestato bonorum possessionem iam incipere: cum enim is qui repudiauit petere bonorum possessionem non potest post repudiationem, consequens erit, ut ab intestato posse peti incipiat.
Clearly, if the periods of time for petitioning for the possession of goods under a will were still being amply granted, but nevertheless the possession of goods has been repudiated, it must be said that the possession of goods from an intestate already begins; for since he who has repudiated cannot petition for the possession of goods after his repudiation, it will follow that it begins to be possible to be petitioned for from an intestate.
§38.6.1.4Sed 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.
But even if the possession of goods has been granted under the Carbonian edict, it is more acceptable that we should say that it can nevertheless be petitioned for from an intestate; for, as we have shown in its proper place, the Carbonian possession of goods does not impede the possession of goods under the edict.
§38.6.1.5Recte autem praetor a liberis initium fecit ab intestato successionis, ut, sicuti contra tabulas ipsis defert, ita et ab intestato ipsos uocet.
Moreover, the praetor rightly made a beginning of intestate succession from children, so that, just as he grants it to them contrary to the tablet of the will, so also he may call them from an intestate.
§38.6.1.6Liberos autem accipere debemus quos ad contra tabulas bonorum possessionem admittendos diximus, tam naturales quam adoptiuos.
But we must understand as children those whom we have said are to be admitted to the possession of goods contrary to the tablet of the will, both natural and adoptive.
sed adoptiuos hactenus admittimus, si fuerint in potestate: ceterum si sui iuris fuerint, ad bonorum possessionem non inuitantur, quia adoptionis iura dissoluta sunt emancipatione.
However, we admit adoptive children only to this extent, if they were in power; otherwise, if they were independent, they are not invited to the possession of goods, because the rights of adoption are dissolved by emancipation.
§38.6.1.7Si quis filium suum emancipatum in locum nepotis adoptauit et emancipauit, cum haberet et nepotem ex eo, quaesitum est apud Marcellum, an adoptio rescissa impediat nepotem.
If anyone adopted his emancipated son in place of a grandson and emancipated him, while he also had a grandson by him, it was asked in the works of Marcellus whether the rescinded adoption impedes the grandson.
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 adoptiuus est in potestate, non quasi naturalis?
But since a grandson is customarily joined to an emancipated father, who would not say that, even if he was adopted and was as if a son, he nevertheless does not stand in the way of his own son, because he is in power as if an adoptive son, not as if a natural one?
§38.6.1.8Si heres institutus non habeat uoluntatem, uel quia incisae sunt tabulae uel quia cancellatae uel quia alia ratione uoluntatem testator mutauit uoluitque intestato decedere, dicendum est ab intestato rem habituros eos, qui bonorum possessionem acceperunt.
If the instituted heir does not have the intention to take, either because the tablets of the will have been erased, or because they have been cancelled, or because the testator changed his mind for some other reason and wished to die intestate, it must be said that those who have accepted the possession of goods will hold the property from an intestate.
§38.6.1.9Si 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.
If an emancipated son has been disinherited, while he who had been in power was passed over, the praetor must protect the emancipated son who petitions for the possession of goods from an intestate under the class "children," up to a half-share, just as if the father had left no tablets of a will.