[ULPIANUS libro quarto decimo ad edictum. ] §5.2.8.prPapinianus libro quinto quaestionum recte scribit inofficiosi querellam patrem filii sui nomine instituere non posse inuito eo: ipsius enim iniuria est.
[ULPIANUS, On the Edict, Book 14] Papinianus rightly writes in the fifth book of Questions that a father cannot institute a complaint of an inofficious testament in his son's name against the son's will; for the injury is the son's own.
sequenti loco scribit, si filius post adgnitam litis ordinandae gratia bonorum possessionem decesserit, finitam esse inofficiosi querellam, quae non patri, sed nomine dabatur filii.
In the next passage he writes that if the son dies after having accepted the possession of goods for the purpose of preparing the lawsuit, the complaint of an inofficious testament is ended, which was granted not to the father, but in the name of the son.
§5.2.8.1Si quis post rem inofficiosi ordinatam litem dereliquerit, postea non audietur.
If anyone deserts the lawsuit after the matter of the inofficious testament has been prepared, he shall not be heard thereafter.
§5.2.8.2Si imperator sit heres institutus, posse inofficiosum dici testamentum saepissime rescriptum est.
If the Emperor is instituted heir, it has been very often replied by rescript that the testament can be declared inofficious.
§5.2.8.3Papinianus libro secundo responsorum ait contra ueterani patris familias testamentum esse inofficiosi querellam, etsi ea sola bona habuit quae in castris quaesierat.
Papinianus says in the second book of Opinions that there is a complaint of an inofficious testament against the testament of a veteran paterfamilias, even if he had only those goods which he had acquired in camp.
§5.2.8.4Si quis in militia fecerit testamentum et intra annum post militiam decesserit, dubito an, quia ad hoc usque temporis iure militari testamentum eius ualet, querella inofficiosi cesset: et potest dici querellam inofficiosi cessare.
If anyone has made a testament while on military service and dies within a year after the service, I doubt whether the complaint of an inofficious testament is barred, because up to this time his testament is valid by military law; and it can be said that the complaint of an inofficious testament is barred.
§5.2.8.5Sed nec impuberis filii mater inofficiosum testamentum dicit, quia pater ei hoc fecit (et ita Papinianus respondit): nec patris frater, quia filii testamentum est: ergo nec frater impuberis, si patris non dixit.
But neither does the mother of an impuberal son declare the testament inofficious, because the father made this for him (and so Papinianus answered); nor does the father's brother, because it is the son's testament; therefore, neither does the brother of the impuberal son, if he did not declare the father's testament inofficious.
sed si in patris obtentum est, nec hoc ualebit: nisi si pro parte patris rescissum est: tunc enim pupillare ualet.
But if the claim succeeded against the father's testament, neither will this be valid, unless the father's testament was rescinded in part; for in that case, the pupillary testament is valid.
§5.2.8.6Si quis mortis causa filio donauerit quartam partem eius quod ad eum esset peruenturum, si intestatus pater familias decessisset, puto secure eum testari.
If anyone has given to his son by gift in prospect of death a fourth part of what would have come to him if the paterfamilias had died intestate, I think he can make his testament securely.
§5.2.8.7Si quis impuberi filio substituit secundas tabulas faciendo, non ob hoc admittemus ipsum impuberem ad inofficiosi querellam.
If anyone has substituted an heir to his impuberal son by making a second will, we shall not on this account admit the impuberal himself to the complaint of an inofficious testament.
§5.2.8.8Quoniam autem quarta debitae portionis sufficit ad excludendam querellam, uidendum erit an exheredatus partem faciat qui non queritur: ut puta sumus duo filii exheredati.
Moreover, since a fourth of the due portion is sufficient to exclude the complaint, it will have to be seen whether a disinherited person who does not complain makes up a share; for example, let us assume we are two disinherited sons.
et utique faciet, ut Papinianus respondit, et si dicam inofficiosum, non totam hereditatem debeo, sed dimidiam petere.
And he certainly will, as Papinianus answered, and if I claim the testament to be inofficious, I ought to demand not the whole inheritance, but a half.
proinde si sint ex duobus filiis nepotes, ex uno plures, tres puta, ex uno unus: unicum sescuncia, unum ex illis semuncia querella excludit.
Accordingly, if there are grandsons from two sons, several, say three, from one, and one from the other: one and a half ounces (sescuncia) excludes the sole grandson, and half an ounce (semuncia) excludes one of the three grandsons from the complaint.
§5.2.8.9Quarta autem accipietur scilicet deducto aere alieno et funeris impensa: sed an et libertates quartam minuant, uidendum est.
But this fourth will, of course, be taken after deducting debts and funeral expenses. But it must be considered whether manumissions also reduce the fourth.
et numquid minuant? nam si, cum quis ex asse heres institutus, est, ideo non potest dicere inofficiosum, quia habet Falcidiam, Falcidia autem libertates non minuit: potest dici deductis libertatibus quartam ineundam.
And do they reduce it? For if, when someone is instituted heir to the whole estate, he cannot declare the testament inofficious because he has the Falcidian portion, and the Falcidian law does not reduce manumissions, it can be said that the fourth is to be calculated after deducting manumissions.
cum igitur placet quartam minui per libertates, eueniet ut, qui seruos tantum habet in patrimonio suo, dando eis libertatem inofficiosi querellam excludat: nisi forte hic filius, si non fuit in potestate, a patre heres institutus merito omittit hereditatem et ad substitutum transmittens querellam inofficiosi instituet, uel ab intestato citra edicti poenam habeat hereditatem.
Since, therefore, it is accepted that the fourth is reduced by manumissions, it will happen that a person who has only slaves in his estate, by granting them freedom, would exclude the complaint of an inofficious testament; unless perhaps this son, if he was not under power, being instituted heir by his father, rightly rejects the inheritance and, by letting it pass to the substitute, institutes the complaint of an inofficious testament, or takes the inheritance as on intestacy without incurring the penalty of the edict.
§5.2.8.10Si condicioni parere testator heredem iussit in persona filii uel alterius qui eandem querellam mouere potest et sciens is accepit, uidendum, ne ab inofficiosi querella excludatur: adgnouit enim iudicium.
If the testator ordered the heir to satisfy a condition in the person of the son or of another who can bring the same complaint, and he accepted it knowingly, we must see whether he is not excluded from the complaint of an inofficious testament; for he recognized the judgment.
idem est et si legatarius ei uel statuliber dedit.
The same holds if a legatee or a conditionally free slave (statuliber) gave it to him.
et potest dici excludi eum, maxime si heredem ei iusserat dare: ceterum si legatarium, numquid semel natam inofficiosi querellam non peremat legatarii oblatio? cur ergo in herede absolute diximus? quoniam ante aditam hereditatem nec nascitur querella.
And it can be said that he is excluded, especially if he had ordered the heir to give it to him; but if he ordered a legatee, does not the offer of the legatee fail to extinguish the complaint of an inofficious testament once it has arisen? Why, then, did we speak absolutely in the case of the heir? Because before the inheritance is entered upon, the complaint does not even arise.
ego euentum puto sequendum in hac re, ut, si forte antequam iudicium moueatur oblatio ei fiat eius quod relictum est, quasi ex uoluntate testatoris oblato eo satis ei factum uideatur.
I think that the outcome should be followed in this matter, so that if by chance before the lawsuit is commenced, the offer of what was left is made to him, he may be deemed to have been satisfied, as if it had been offered in accordance with the will of the testator.