Pro dote
(Concerning possession on the ground of a dowry.)
1 Ulpianus libro trigensimo primo ad Sabinum. Titulus est usucapionis et quidem iustissimus, qui appellatur pro dote, ut, qui in dotem rem accipiat, usucapere possit spatio sollemni, quo solent, qui pro emptore usucapiunt. 1Et nihil refert, singulae res an pariter universae in dotem darentur. 2Et primum de tempore videamus, quando pro dote quis usucapere possit, utrum post tempora nuptiarum an vero et ante nuptias. est quaestio volgata, an sponsus possit (hoc est qui nondum maritus est) rem pro dote usucapere. et Iulianus inquit, si sponsa sponso ea mente tradiderit res, ut non ante eius fieri vellet, quam nuptiae secutae sint, usu quoque capio cessabit: si tamen non evidenter id actum fuerit, credendum esse id agi Iulianus ait, ut statim res eius fiant et, si alienae sint, usucapi possint: quae sententia mihi probabilis videtur. ante nuptias autem non pro dote usucapit, sed pro suo. 3Constante autem matrimonio pro dote usucapio inter eos locum habet, inter quos est matrimonium: ceterum si cesset matrimonium, Cassius ait cessare usucapionem, quia et dos nulla sit. 4Idem scribit et si putavit maritus esse sibi matrimonium, cum non esset, usucapere eum non posse, quia nulla dos sit: quae sententia habet rationem.
1 Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XXXI. A right to usucaption, and one which is extremely just, is that which is said to exist on account of a dowry, so that anyone who receives property by way of dowry can acquire it by usucaption, after the expiration of the time usually prescribed by law in the case of those who acquire property in this manner as purchasers. 1It makes no difference whether certain specified articles, or the entire amount of the property, is given by way of dowry. 2In the first place, let us consider the time when anyone can acquire property by usucaption as dowry; and whether this is to begin after the date of the marriage, or before it. A question commonly discussed is, whether a man who is betrothed (that is to say, one who has not yet been married), can acquire property by usucaption, because of its being a dowry. Julianus says that, if the woman who is betrothed delivers the property to the other party, with the intention that it shall not belong to him until after the marriage has been solemnized, usucaption will not take place. If, however, this was evidently not the intention, it should be held (so Julianus says) that the property immediately becomes his; and if it belongs to someone else, it can be acquired by usucaption. This opinion seems to me to be plausible. But, before the marriage takes place, usucaption becomes operative, not because of the dowry, but on the ground of ownership. 3During the existence of the marriage, usucaption takes place between the persons who are married, on account of the- dowry. If, however, the marriage does not exist, Cassius says that usucaption cannot occur as there is no dowry. 4He also says that if the husband thinks that he is married, when this is not the case, he cannot acquire the property by usucaption, because there is no dowry. This opinion is reasonable.
2 Paulus libro quinquagensimo quarto ad edictum. Si aestimata res ante nuptias tradita sit, nec pro emptore nec pro suo ante nuptias usucapietur.
2 Paulus, On the Edict, Book LIV. If property which has been appraised is delivered before the marriage has been solemnized, it cannot be acquired by usucaption, either on the ground of purchase or on that of ownership.
3 Scaevola libro vicensimo quinto digestorum. Duae filiae intestato patri heredes exstiterunt et mancipia communia singulae in dotem dederunt et post aliquot annos morte patris familiae herciscundae iudicium inter eas dictatum est. quaesitum est, cum mariti bona fide mancipia in dotem accepta ut dotalia multis annis possederunt, an usucepisse videantur, si qui accipiebant, dantis credidissent esse. respondit nihil proponi, cur non usucepissent.
3 Scævola, Digest, Book XXV. Two daughters became the heirs of their father who died intestate, and each one of them gave slaves belonging to them in common by way of dowry, and then, some years after the death of their father, they brought suit in partition. As the husbands had for many years held possession of the slaves given by way of dowry as dotal slaves, the question arose whether they could be held to have acquired them by usucaption, if they believed that they belonged to those who had given them as dowry. The answer was that there was nothing in the case stated to prevent them from being acquired by usucaption.