[ULPIANUS libro septimo decimo ad edictum. ] §7.6.5.prUti frui ius sibi esse solus potest intendere, qui habet usum fructum, dominus autem fundi non potest, quia qui habet proprietatem, utendi fruendi ius separatum non habet: nec enim potest ei suus fundus seruire: de suo enim, non de alieno iure quemque agere oportet.
[ULPIAN, in the seventeenth book on the Edict.] Only he who has the usufruct can claim that the right to use and enjoy belongs to him; the owner of the land, however, cannot, because he who has the ownership does not have a separate right of using and enjoying; for his own land cannot serve him, since everyone ought to sue on his own right, and not on that of another.
quamquam enim actio negatiua domino competat aduersus fructuarium, magis tamen de suo iure agere uidetur quam alieno, cum inuito se negat ius esse utendi fructuario uel sibi ius esse prohibendi.
For although a negative action is available to the owner against the usufructuary, he nevertheless seems to sue on his own right rather than on that of another, since he denies that the usufructuary has the right of using against his will, or asserts that he himself has the right of prohibiting.
quod si forte qui agit dominus proprietatis non sit, quamuis fructuarius ius utendi non habet, uincet tamen iure, quo possessores sunt potiores, licet nullum ius habeant.
But if by chance the person who sues is not the owner of the property, although the usufructuary does not have the right of using, he will nevertheless prevail by the law under which possessors are in a better position, even if they have no right.
§7.6.5.1Utrum autem aduersus dominum dumtaxat in rem actio usufructuario competat an etiam aduersus quemuis possessorem, quaeritur.
But it is asked whether an action in rem is available to the usufructuary against the owner only, or also against any possessor.
et Iulianus libro septimo digestorum scribit hanc actionem aduersus quemuis possessorem ei competere: nam et si fundo fructuario seruitus debeatur, fructuarius non seruitutem, sed usum fructum uindicare debet aduersus uicini fundi dominum.
And Julian writes in the seventh book of the Digests that this action is available to him against any possessor; for even if a servitude is owed to the land subject to the usufruct, the usufructuary must claim not the servitude, but the usufruct against the owner of the neighboring land.
§7.6.5.2Si partis fundi usus fructus constituatur, potest de eo in rem agi, siue uindicet quis usum fructum siue alii neget.
If a usufruct is established over a part of a tract of land, an action in rem can be brought concerning it, whether someone claims the usufruct or denies it to another.
§7.6.5.3In his autem actionibus, quae de usu fructu aguntur, etiam fructus uenire plus quam manifestum est.
But in these actions which are brought concerning a usufruct, it is more than obvious that the fruits also are included.
§7.6.5.4Si post litem de usu fructu contestatam fuerit finitus usus fructus, an ulterius fructus desinant deberi? et puto desinere: nam et si mortuus fuerit fructuarius, heredi eius actionem praeteritorum dumtaxat fructuum dandam Pomponius libro quadragensimo scribit.
If, after joinder of issue concerning a usufruct, the usufruct has come to an end, do the fruits cease to be due further? And I think they do; for even if the usufructuary has died, Pomponius writes in the fortieth book that his heir must be granted an action only for past fruits.
§7.6.5.4aFructuario qui uicit omnis causa restituenda est: et ideo si serui fuerit usus fructus legatus, quidquid ex re fructuarii uel ex operis suis consecutus est, possessor debebit restituere.
To the usufructuary who has prevailed, the whole cause must be restored; and therefore, if the usufruct of a slave was bequeathed, the possessor must restore whatever he obtained from the property of the usufructuary or from the slave's own labor.
§7.6.5.5Sed et si forte tempore usus fructus amissus est alio quidem possidente, alio autem liti se offerente, non sufficit eum usum fructum iterum renouare, uerum cauere quoque eum de euictione usus fructus oportet: quid enim si seruum aut fundum is qui possidebat pignori dedit isque ab eo qui pignori accepit iure uti prohibetur? debebit itaque habere cautum.
But even if by chance, during the time of the usufruct, it was lost while one person indeed possessed and another offered himself for the lawsuit, it is not enough for him to renew that usufruct again, but he must also give security concerning the eviction of the usufruct; for what if the one who possessed gave the slave or the land in pledge, and the usufructuary is prohibited by law from using it by the person who received it in pledge? Therefore, he must have security.
§7.6.5.6Sicut fructuario in rem confessoriam agenti fructus praestandi sunt, ita et proprietatis domino, si negatoria actione utatur: sed in omnibus ita demum, si non sit possessor qui agat (nam et possessori competunt): quod si possident, nihil fructuum nomine consequentur.
Just as fruits must be provided to the usufructuary suing in a confessory action, so also to the owner of the property if he uses a negative action; but in all cases, only if the one who sues is not the possessor (for they are also available against a possessor); but if they possess, they will obtain nothing under the name of fruits.
quid ergo officium erit iudicis quam hoc, ut securus consequatur fructuarius fruendi licentiam, proprietatis dominus, ne inquietetur?
What then will be the duty of the judge other than this, that the usufructuary may safely obtain the freedom of enjoying, and the owner of the property may not be disturbed?