[ULPIANUS libro trigensimo primo ad Sabinum. ] §41.9.1.prTitulus est usucapionis et quidem iustissimus, qui appellatur pro dote, ut, qui in dotem rem accipiat, usucapere possit spatio sollemni, quo solent, qui pro emptore usucapiunt.
[ULPIAN, from his thirty-first book on Sabinus.] What is called "as a dowry" is a title of usucapion, and indeed a most just one, so that he who receives a thing as a dowry can acquire it by usucapion in the solemn period of time in which those who acquire by usucapion "as a buyer" are accustomed to do so.
§41.9.1.1Et nihil refert, singulae res an pariter uniuersae in dotem darentur.
And it makes no difference whether individual things or all things together are given as a dowry.
§41.9.1.2Et primum de tempore uideamus, quando pro dote quis usucapere possit, utrum post tempora nuptiarum an uero et ante nuptias.
And first let us look at the time, when one can acquire by usucapion "as a dowry," whether after the time of the marriage or indeed also before the marriage.
est quaestio uolgata, an sponsus possit (hoc est qui nondum maritus est) rem pro dote usucapere. et Iulianus inquit, si sponsa sponso ea mente tradiderit res, ut non ante eius fieri uellet, quam nuptiae secutae sint, usu quoque capio cessabit: si tamen non euidenter id actum fuerit, credendum esse id agi Iulianus ait, ut statim res eius fiant et, si alienae sint, usucapi possint: quae sententia mihi probabilis uidetur.
It is a common question whether a betrothed man (that is, one who is not yet a husband) can acquire a thing by usucapion "as a dowry." And Julian says that if the betrothed woman delivered things to the betrothed man with the intention that she did not wish them to become his before the marriage had followed, usucapion also will cease; if, however, this was not clearly agreed upon, Julian says it must be believed that it was agreed that the things should immediately become his and, if they belong to another, can be acquired by usucapion; which opinion seems to me to be acceptable.
ante nuptias autem non pro dote usucapit, sed pro suo. §41.9.1.3Constante autem matrimonio pro dote usucapio inter eos locum habet, inter quos est matrimonium: ceterum si cesset matrimonium, Cassius ait cessare usucapionem, quia et dos nulla sit.
Before the marriage, however, he does not acquire by usucapion "as a dowry," but "as his own." But during the marriage, usucapion "as a dowry" takes place between those between whom there is a marriage; on the other hand, if there is no marriage, Cassius says that usucapion ceases because there is also no dowry.
§41.9.1.4Idem scribit et si putauit maritus esse sibi matrimonium, cum non esset, usucapere eum non posse, quia nulla dos sit: quae sententia habet rationem.
The same writer also writes that if a husband thought that he had a marriage when there was none, he cannot acquire by usucapion because there is no dowry; which opinion is reasonable.