[SCAEUOLA libro uicensimo tertio digestorum. ] §40.4.29.prUxorem praegnatem repudiauerat et aliam duxerat: prior enixa filium exposuit: hic sublatus ab alio educatus est nomine patris uocitatus usque: ad uitae tempus patris tam ab eo quam a matre, an uiuorum numero esset, ignorabatur: mortuo patre testamentoque eius, quo filius neque exheredatus neque heres institutus sit, recitato filius et a matre et ab auia paterna adgnitus hereditatem patris ab intestato quasi legitimus possidet.
[SCAEVOLA in the twenty-third book of the Digests.] A man had divorced his pregnant wife and married another. The former wife, having given birth, exposed the son. This boy was taken up, brought up by another, and was always called by his father's name. Up to the time of the father's death, it was unknown both by him and by the mother whether the boy was among the living. After the father died and his will—in which the son was neither disinherited nor instituted as heir—was read, the son was recognized both by his mother and by his paternal grandmother, and possesses the father's inheritance on intestacy as if he were the lawful heir.
quaesitum est, hi qui testamento libertatem acceperunt utrum liberi an serui sint.
It was asked whether those who received freedom by the will are free or slaves.
respondit filium quidem nihil praeiudicii passum fuisse, si pater eum ignorauit, et ideo, cum in potestate et ignorantis patris esset, testamentum non ualere.
He replied that the son indeed suffered no prejudice if the father was ignorant of him, and therefore, since he was under the power of even an ignorant father, the will is not valid.
serui autem manumissi si per quinquennium in libertate morati sunt, semel datam libertatem infirmari contrarium studium fauore libertatis est.
However, if the manumitted slaves have remained in freedom for five years, to invalidate the freedom once given is contrary to the principle of favor of liberty.