Introduction
Acquisition and loss of ownership, the most extensive and strongly protected right that a person could have over property, were regulated by the Roman legal order with particular thoroughness.
For the transfer of res mancipi,[145] the formal procedures of mancipatio [“mancipation”] and in iure cessio [“surrender in law”] continued to be used into the classical period. These procedures were replaced in the Justinianic reworking of the sources by informal traditio [i.e., mere delivery, which had become more common already in classical practice.The procedure of traditio was applicable, according to the parties' wishes, to the transfer of “detention” (i.e., simple holding), possession, or ownership. It has therefore already been partially discussed in Chapter I [in connection with possession]. Traditio was certainly the most frequent and important method of transferring ownership in general. As a form of derivative acquisition of rights, its effectiveness depended upon the legal capacity of the previous owner, his authority to alienate the property, certain prohibitions to alienation, and a valid meeting of the minds. The classical jurists required in addition a iusta causa [“legitimate reason”] for the transfer of ownership.
The process of usucapio brought about ownership independently of—in fact, in opposition to—existing ownership rights. The function of this means of original acquisition lay principally in rectifying a defective derivative acquisition, and therewith in guaranteeing legal certainty in the interests of the regulated exchange of goods. Roman law did not recognize any immediate acquisition of ownership in good faith by those without entitlement. However, after a relatively short period of prescription, during which the actual owner could pursue his rights, the good-faith possessor acquired ownership of another's property that he had obtained without proper title but on the basis of a iusta causa.
The texts collected in subsection B of this chapter should shed light on three issues [concerning usucapio]: the content of the requisite bonafides, the problem of putative title, and the exposition of [the statute known as] the lex Atinia.Hunting and fishing are typical examples of acquiring original ownership through occupatio of res nullius [“ownerless property”]. This category was more widely defined in Rome than in many other legal systems, which [often] provide for reservations in favor of the state or of certain groups.
Finding, on the other hand, only exceptionally led to acquisition of ownership in Rome: viz. when the [found] property had been abandoned by the owner, and when a thensaurus [“treasure-trove”] was involved.
class=a6 style='text-indent:18.0pt'>Just as with occupatio through hunting and fishing, treasure-trove, and the taking-up of res derelictae [“abandoned property”], the acquisition of fruits by separation from the source-property or by taking possession of them was reckoned to be one of the so-called natural ways of acquiring ownership, by which the Roman jurists traced acquisition of original ownership to naturalis ratio [“natural reason”] and ius gentium [“law recognized by all peoples”].The same was true of acquiring and losing ownership through accession and mixing. One group of cases under this head concerns the accession of movables to land (superficies solo cedit [“the surface goes with the ground”]). A second group concerns the accession of movables to movables; and a third, the blending and mixing of things. Acquiring ownership of money constitutes a special case of the latter.
The problem of who owns a new kind of thing that someone has made out of material belonging to another will be discussed as the last type of natural acquisition. This is known as “transformation” (or “specification”).
Loss of ownership is not treated in one place but is discussed in connection with the various types of acquisition where one's acquisition of ownership is linked to another's loss of the same.
In this connection possible claims for compensation are occasionally discussed, although they cannot always substitute fully for the lost position of ownership. As a property right, ownership can also come about upon the default of a debtor and thereby be exercised against third party transferees.Literature:
A. Traditio
Kaser, Max. “Zur lusta Causa Traditionis.” BIDR 64 (1961) 61-97.
Wolf, Joseph Georg. Error Im römischen Vertragsrecht, Vol. 12. Abh. Köln: Böhlau, 1961, 100 ff.
Jahr, G. “Zur lusta Causa Traditionis.” ZRG 80 (1963) 141-174.
Benke, Nikolaus. “Zur ‘traditio’ als zentralem Modell privatrechtlicher Vermögensübertragung,” in Gedächtnisschrift Herbert Hofmeister, Herbert Hofmeister, Werner Ogris and Walter H. Rechberger, eds. Wien: Manzsche Verlags-und Universitätsbuchhandlung, 1996, 31 ff.
B. Usucapio
Thomas,J. A. C. “The Theftuous Pledger and the Lex Atinia,” in Studi in Onore Di Gaetano Scherillo, I. Milano: Cisalpino - La Goliardica, 1972, 395-404.
Hausmaninger, Herbert. Die bona fides des Ersitzungsbesitzers im klassischen römischen Recht, Wien: Herold, 1964; and the review by Wubbe, RHD 32 (1964) 597 ff.
Mayer-Maly, Theo. Das Putativtitelproblem bei der Usucapio, Graz; Köln: Böhlaus, 1962.
Winkel, Laurens C.
Error Iuris Nocet. Zutphen, Holland: Terra, 1985.Bauer, Karen. Ersitzung und Bereicherung im klassischen römischen Recht : und die Ersitzung im BGB, n.F., Bd. 11. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1988.
Jakobs, H. H. “Error Falsae Causae,” in Festschrift für Werner Flume zum 70. Geburtstag, 12. September 1978, I, H. H. Jakobs, ed., Köln: Schmidt, 1978, 43-99.
C. Occupatio
Kaser, Max. “Die natürlichen Eigentumserwerbsarten im altrömischen Recht.” ZRG 65 (1947) 219-260.
Knütel, Rolf. “Von schwimmende Inseln, wandernden Bäumen, flüchtenden Tieren und verborgenen Schätzen,” in Rechtsgeschichte und Privatrechtsdogmatik, R. Zimmermann, R. Knütel, and J. Peter Meincke, eds. Heidelberg: C.F. Müller, 1999, 549 ff.
D. Abandonment and Finding
Düll, R. “Auslobung und Fund im antiken Recht.” ZRG 61 (1941) 19-43.
E. Treasure-trove
Hausmaninger, H. “Besitzerwerb solo animo,” in Festgabe für Arnold Herdlitczka zu seinem 75. Geburtstag. Dargebracht von seinen Schülern und Freunden, Arnold Rudolf Herdlitczka, Franz Horak, and Wolfgang Waldstein, eds. München: W. Fink, 1972, 113-119.
Hill, George. Treasure Trove in Law and Practice from the Earliest Time to the Present Day. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1936.
F. Acquisition of Fruits
Kaser, Max.
“Zum Fruchterwerb des Usufruktuars,” Studi in Onore Di Gaetano Scherillo1. Milano: Cisalpino - La Goliardica,1972, 405-426.
----------. “Partus Ancillae.” ZRG 75 (1958) 156-200.
Thielmann, G. “Produktion als Grundlage des Fruchterwerbs,” ZRG 94 (1977) 76-100.
G. Joining, Blending, and Mixing
Meincke, J. P. “Superficies Solo Cedit,” ZRG 88 (1971) 136-183.
Kaser, Max. Review of Melillo, G. Tignum Iunctum, Napoli: Jovene (1964), in Labeo 12 (1964) 104 ff.
Hinker, H. “Tignum lunctum” ZRG 108 (1991) 94-122.
Kaser, Max. “Tabula Picta.” RHD 36 (1968) 31-56.
Watkin, T. G. “Tabula Picta: Images and Icons,” SDHI 50 (1984) 383-399.
Kaser, Max. “Das Geld im römischen Sachenrecht,” RHD 29(1961) 169-229.
Fuchs, J. G. “Consumptio Nummorum,” in Melanges Ph. Meylan, I, Lausanne: Imprimerie centrale, 1963, 125-137.
Wacke, A. “Die Zahlung mit fremden Geld. Zum Begriff des Pecuniam Consumere.” BIDR 79 (1976) 49-144.
Bürge, Alfons. Retentio im römischen Sachen- und Obligationenrecht. Zürich: Schulthess, 1979, 14 ff.
Schermaier, Martin Josef. Materia: Beiträge zur Frage der Naturphilosophie im klassischen römischen Recht.
Wien: Böhlau, 1992.H. Transformation
Wieacker, Fr. “Zum Thema der Spezifikation.” Festschrift Für E. Rabel, II: Geschichte Der Antiken Rechte Und Allgemeine Rechtslehre, Tübingen: Mohr, 1954, II. 263-293.
Mayer-Maly, Th. “Spezifikation. Leitfälle, Begriffsbildung, Rechtsinstitut.” ZRG 73 (1956) 120-154.
Thielmann, G. “Zum Eigentumserwerb durch Verarbeitung im römischen Recht,” in Sein und Werden im Recht: Festgabe für Ulrich von Lübtow zum 70. Geburtstag am 21. August 1970, Walter Gustav Becker and Ludwig Schnorr von Carosfeld, eds., Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1970, 187-232.
Schermaier, Martin Josef. “D. 41,1,24 und 26 Pr. Ein Versuch zur Verarbeitungslehre des Paulus.” ZRG 105 (1988) 436-487.
______. “Teilvindikation oder Teilungsklage? Auf der Suche nach dem klassischen Vermischungs-recht.” ZRG 110 (1993) 124-183.
Behrends, Okko. “Die Spezifikationslehre, ihre Gegner und die Media Sententia in der Geschichte der römischen Jurisprudenz.” ZRG 112 (1995) 195-238.