[ULPIANUS libro sexagensimo nono ad edictum. ] §43.17.1.prAit praetor: 'Uti eas aedes, quibus de agitur, nec ui nec clam nec precario alter ab altero possidetis, quo minus ita possideatis, uim fieri ueto.
[ULPIANUS, in the sixty-ninth book on the Edict.] The praetor says: 'In the manner that you possess the buildings in question, neither by force, nor secretly, nor by precarium from one another, I forbid force to be used to prevent you from possessing them in that manner.
de cloacis hoc interdictum non dabo.
I will not grant this interdict regarding sewers.
neque pluris, quam 'quanti res erit: intra annum, quo primum experiundi potestas fuerit, agere permittam'. §43.17.1.1Hoc interdictum de soli possessore scriptum est, quem potiorem praetor in soli possessione habeat, et est prohibitorium ad retinendam possessionem.
Nor will I permit an action to be brought for more than the value of the property, and only within a year from the time when the ability to sue first arose.' This interdict is written concerning the possessor of land, whom the praetor regards as having a better right in the possession of land, and it is a prohibitory interdict for retaining possession.
§43.17.1.2Huius autem interdicti proponendi causa haec fuit, quod separata esse debet possessio a proprietate: fieri etenim potest, ut alter possessor sit, dominus non sit, alter dominus quidem sit, possessor uero non sit: fieri potest, ut et possessor idem et dominus sit.
Now, the reason for proposing this interdict was that possession ought to be separated from ownership; for it can happen that one person is the possessor and not the owner, and another is indeed the owner but not the possessor, and it can also happen that the same person is both possessor and owner.
§43.17.1.3Inter litigatores ergo quotiens est proprietatis controuersia, aut conuenit inter litigatores, uter possessor sit, uter petitor, aut non conuenit.
Therefore, whenever there is a dispute over ownership between litigants, either there is agreement between the litigants as to which is the possessor and which is the claimant, or there is not.
si conuenit, absolutum est: ille possessoris commodo, quem conuenit possidere, ille petitoris onere fungetur.
If there is agreement, the matter is settled: the one who is agreed to possess will enjoy the advantage of the possessor, while the other will bear the burden of the claimant.
sed si inter ipsos contendatur, uter possideat, quia alteruter se magis possidere adfirmat, tunc, si res soli sit, in cuius possessione contenditur, ad hoc interdictum remittentur.
But if there is a dispute between them as to which of them possesses, because each asserts that he has the stronger claim to possession, then, if the thing whose possession is in dispute is land, they will be referred to this interdict.
§43.17.1.4Est igitur hoc interdictum, quod uolgo uti possidetis appellatur, retinendae possessionis (nam huius rei causa redditur, ne uis fiat ei qui possidet) et consequenter proponitur post interdictum unde ui.
This interdict, therefore, which is commonly called uti possidetis, is for retaining possession (for it is granted for this reason, that force may not be used against the one who possesses) and is consequently proposed after the interdict unde vi.
illud enim restituit ui amissam possessionem, hoc interdictum tuetur, ne amittatur possessio, denique praetor possidenti uim fieri uetat: et illud quidem interdictum obpugnat possessorem, hoc tuetur.
For the latter restores possession lost by force, while this interdict protects against possession being lost; in short, the praetor forbids force to be used against the possessor. And indeed, that former interdict attacks the possessor, while this one protects him.
et ut Pedius ait, omnis de possessione controuersia aut eo pertinet, ut, quod non possidemus, nobis restituatur, aut ad hoc, ut retinere nobis liceat quod possidemus.
And as Pedius says, every controversy concerning possession relates either to this, that what we do not possess should be restored to us, or to this, that we should be allowed to retain what we possess.
restitutae possessionis ordo aut interdicto expeditur aut per actionem: retinendae itaque possessionis duplex uia est, aut exceptio aut interdictum.
The process of restoring possession is dispatched either by an interdict or by an action; thus, there is a double path for retaining possession, either an exception or an interdict.
exceptio datur ex multis causis ei qui possidet.
An exception is granted for many reasons to the one who possesses.
§43.17.1.5Perpetuo autem hoc interdicto insunt haec: 'quod nec ui nec clam nec precario ab illo possides'. §43.17.1.6Interdictum autem possessorem praedii tuetur, quod est uti possidetis.
Now, these words are perpetually contained in this interdict: 'which you possess from him neither by force, nor secretly, nor by precarium.' Moreover, the interdict which is uti possidetis protects the possessor of land.
actio enim numquam ultro possessori datur, quippe sufficit ei quod possideat.
For an action is never granted to a possessor of his own motion, since it is sufficient for him that he possesses.
§43.17.1.7Hoc interdictum locum habet, siue quis totum fundum possidere se dicat, siue pro certa parte, siue pro indiuiso possideat.
This interdict takes place, whether someone claims that he possesses the whole estate, or possesses for a certain part, or undivided.
§43.17.1.8Hoc interdictum in omnibus etiam possessionibus, quae sunt soli, sine dubio locum habebit, dummodo possideri possit.
This interdict will doubtless take place in all possessions that are of land, provided that it can be possessed.
§43.17.1.9Quod ait praetor in interdicto: 'nec ui nec clam nec precario alter ab altero possidetis', hoc eo pertinet, ut, si quis possidet ui aut clam aut precario, si quidem ab alio, prosit ei possessio, si uero ab adversario suo, non debeat eum propter hoc quod ab eo possidet uincere: has enim possessiones non debere proficere palam est.
What the praetor says in the interdict: 'you possess neither by force, nor secretly, nor by precarium from one another,' means this: if anyone possesses by force, secretly, or by precarium, and indeed does so from another, the possession should benefit him; but if he does so from his opponent, he ought not to win against him because of the fact that he possesses from him, for it is clear that such possessions ought not to be advantageous.