[ULPIANUS libro sexto decimo ad edictum. ] §6.1.9.prOfficium autem iudicis in hac actione in hoc erit, ut iudex inspiciat, an reus possideat: nec ad rem pertinebit, ex qua causa possideat: ubi enim probaui rem meam esse, necesse habebit possessor restituere, qui non obiecit aliquam exceptionem.
[ULPIAN, in the sixteenth book on the Edict.] Moreover, the duty of the judge in this action will consist in this, that the judge inspects whether the defendant possesses; nor will it be relevant by what cause he possesses; for when I have proved that the thing is mine, the possessor, who has not raised any exception, will have the necessity to restore it.
quidam tamen, ut Pegasus, eam solam possessionem putauerunt hanc actionem complecti, quae locum habet in interdicto uti possidetis uel utrubi.
Some, however, such as Pegasus, have thought that this action embraces only that possession which has a place in the interdict uti possidetis or utrubi.
denique ait ab eo, apud quem deposita est uel commodata uel qui conduxerit aut qui legatorum seruandorum causa uel dotis uentrisue nomine in possessione esset uel cui damni infecti nomine non cauebatur, quia hi omnes non possident, uindicari non posse.
Accordingly, he says that a claim cannot be made against one with whom a thing has been deposited or lent, or who has hired it, or who is in possession for the purpose of preserving legacies, or on account of a dowry or an unborn child, or to whom security was not given on account of threatened damage, because all these do not possess.
puto autem ab omnibus, qui tenent et habent restituendi facultatem, peti posse.
But I think that it can be claimed from all who hold the thing and have the capacity to restore it.