Introduction
This chapter aims to present some examples of how and to what extent the owner can legally pursue his rights.
The rei vindicatio [“vindication of property”] is the suit of a civil-law owner[275] to assert his rights and recover possession of his property.
Two aspects are here presented for discussion: the establishment of the defendant’s liability to suit, and the extent of the defendant’s obligation to make restitution (fruits, compensation for damage, expenses).The actio publiciana [“Publician action”] is modeled on the rei vindicatio. It gives the usucapting possessor legal protection against third parties with a lesser claim to it. The Publician action is also available to the “bonitary owner” (i.e., someone to whom a civil-law owner has transferred res mancipi by traditio [with iusta causa, but not by the formal procedure of mancipatio or in iure cessio, with the result that the conveyance is technically defective]. The bonitary owner can use the actio publiciana against the civil-law owner whose rei vindicatio, or exceptio dominii [“affirmative defense of ownership”] when defending a suit, can be defeated by the bonitary owner’s use of exceptiones or replicationes rei venditae et traditae or doli.[276]
The suit to clear title is called the actio negatoria [“denial action”]. It served to defend against claims of servitudes, “immisions” [i.e., the commission of what at common law would be called nuisance or trespass], and other impairments of ownership.
In addition to all of these, the owner could, under certain conditions, make use of the possessory interdicts and a series of special legal remedies involving relations with neighbors.
As an especially effective and illustrative legal remedy in this connection the interdictum quod vi aut clam [i.e., interdict of the form that begins: “What by force or stealth... “] will be discussed. It will provide a glance at how Roman jurists interpreted the Praetor’s edict.Literature:
Kaser, Max. Restituere als Prozessgegenstand: ein Beitrag zur Lehre von der materiellrechtlichen Beschaffenheit der in iudicium deduzierten Ansprüche im klassischen römischen Recht, 2nd ed. München: C. H. Beck, 1968.
---------. “Nochmals über Besitz und Verschulden bei den actiones in rem.” ZRG 98 (1981) 77-146.
Wimmer, Markus. Besitz und Haftung des Vindikationsbeklagten. Köln: Böhlau, 1995. Kaser, M. “In bonis esse.” ZRG 78 (1961) 173-220.
Apathy, P. “Die actio Publiciana beim Doppelkauf vom Nichteigentümer.” ZRG 99 (1982) 158-187.
Maifeld, Jan. Die aequitas bei L. Neratius Priscus. Trier: WVT Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, 1991.
Watson, Alan. The Law of Property in the Later Roman Republic. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968, 176 ff. (actio negatoria), 222 ff. (quod vi aut clam).
Thielmann, Georg. “Nochmals: Doppelveräusserung durch Nichtberechtigte: D. 19, 1, 31,2 und D. 6, 2, 9, 4.” ZRG 111 (1994) 197-241.
Wesener, Gunter. “Die Immissionen: Zur Entstehungsgeschichte des § 906 BGB,” in Vestigia iuris Romani : Festschrift für Gunter Wesener zum 60. Geburtstag am 3. Juni 1992, Gunter Wesener, Georg Klingenberg, Michael J. Rainer, and Herwig Stiegler, eds. Graz: Leykam, 1992, 351 ff.