[IDEM libro septimo decimo ad edictum. ] §8.5.2.prDe seruitutibus in rem actiones conpetunt nobis ad exemplum earum quae ad usum fructum pertinent, tam confessoria quam negatoria, confessoria ei qui seruitutes sibi competere contendit, negatoria domino qui negat.
[THE SAME, book 17 on the Edict] Concerning servitudes, actions in rem are available to us on the model of those which pertain to usufruct, both confessory and negatory: the confessory action to him who contends that servitudes belong to him, the negatory to the owner who denies it.
§8.5.2.1Haec autem in rem actio confessoria nulli alii quam domino fundi competit: seruitutem enim nemo uindicare potest quam is qui dominium in fundo uicino habet, cui seruitutem dicit deberi.
However, this confessory action in rem is available to no other than the owner of the land; for no one can claim a servitude except him who has ownership of the neighboring land, for which he claims the servitude is owed.
§8.5.2.2Recte Neratius scribit, si medii loci usus fructus legetur, iter quoque sequi (per ea scilicet loca fundi, per quae qui usum fructum cessit constitueret) quatenus est ad fruendum necessarium: namque sciendum est iter, quod fruendi gratia fructuario praestatur, non esse seruitutem, neque enim potest soli fructuario seruitus deberi: sed si fundo debeatur, et ipse fructuarius ea utetur.
Neratius correctly writes that if the usufruct of a middle place is bequeathed, a right of way also follows (namely, through those places of the land through which he who granted the usufruct would have established it) as far as is necessary for enjoyment; for it must be understood that the right of way which is provided to the usufructuary for the sake of enjoyment is not a servitude, for a servitude cannot be owed to the usufructuary alone; but if it is owed to the land, the usufructuary himself will also use it.
§8.5.2.3Pomponius dicit fructuarium interdicto de itinere uti posse, si hoc anno usus est: alibi enim de iure, id est in confessoria actione, alibi de facto, ut in hoc interdicto, quaeritur: quod et Iulianus libro quadragensimo octauo digestorum scribit.
Pomponius says that the usufructuary can use the interdict concerning a right of way, if he has used it during this year; for in one case the question is about right, that is, in the confessory action, and in another about fact, as in this interdict; which Julian also writes in the forty-eighth book of his Digests.
pro sententia Iuliani facit, quod Labeo scribit, etiam si testator usus sit qui legauit usum fructum, debere utile interdictum fructuario dari, quemadmodum heredi uel emptori competunt haec interdicta.
In favor of Julian’s opinion is what Labeo writes, that even if the testator who bequeathed the usufruct used it, an equitable interdict ought to be given to the usufructuary, just as these interdicts are available to an heir or a buyer.