Si usus fructus petetur vel ad alium pertinere negetur
(Concerning the Action for the Recovery of Usufruct, and That by Which It is Denied.)
1 Ulpianus libro octavo decimo ad Sabinum. Si fundo fructuario servitus debeatur, Marcellus libro octavo apud Iulianum Labeonis et Nervae sententiam probat existimantium servitutem quidem eum vindicare non posse, verum usum fructum vindicaturum ac per hoc vicinum, si non patiatur eum ire et agere, teneri ei, quasi non patiatur uti frui. 1Usus fructus legatus adminiculis eget, sine quibus uti frui quis non potest: et ideo si usus fructus legetur, necesse est tamen ut sequatur eum aditus, usque adeo, ut, si quis usum fructum loci leget ita, ne heres cogatur viam praestare, inutiliter hoc adiectum videatur: item si usu fructu legato iter ademptum sit, inutilis est ademptio, quia semper sequitur usum fructum. 2Sed si usus fructus sit legatus, ad quem aditus non est per hereditarium fundum, ex testamento utique agendo fructuarius consequetur, ut cum aditu sibi praestetur usus fructus. 3Utrum autem aditus tantum et iter an vero et via debeatur fructuario legato ei usu fructu, Pomponius libro quinto dubitat: et recte putat, prout usus fructus perceptio desiderat, hoc ei praestandum. 4Sed an et alias utilitates et servitutes ei heres praestare debeat, puta luminum et aquarum, an vero non? et puto eas solas praestare compellendum, sine quibus omnino uti non potest: sed si cum aliquo incommodo utatur, non esse praestandas.
1 Ulpianus, On Sabinus, Book XVIII. Where a servitude is attached to land subject to an usufruct, Marcellus, in the Eighth Book quoted by Julianus, approves the opinion of Labeo and Nerva, namely, that the usufructuary cannot bring an action for the recovery of the servitude, but can bring one for the recovery of the usufruct; and, according to this, if the neighbor does not suffer him to walk or drive across the land, the latter is liable because he did not permit him to enjoy the usufruct. 1An usufruct requires those adjuncts to be bequeathed without which a party cannot enjoy it; and therefore where one is bequeathed, it is also necessary for access to be joined with it; to such an extent is this true, that where a person leaves the usufruct of a certain place in such language that the heir shall not be compelled to permit a road, this addition is considered void; and also where an usufruct is bequeathed and a right of way is withheld, the reservation is void, because a right of access always accompanies the usufruct. 2Where, however, an usufruct is bequeathed, and there is no right of access to the land which is subject to it and is part of the estate; the usufructuary can bring suit under the will to obtain the usufruct together with access to the same. 3Pomponius, in the Fifth Book, is in doubt as to whether, where an usufruct is bequeathed, the usufructuary has only a right of access, or has the right to a path or roadway as well? He very properly thinks that he ought to be granted means by which he may enjoy his usufruct. 4Will the heir be required to provide him with other benefits and servitudes also; as, for instance, those of light and water, or not? I am of the opinion that he can only be compelled to provide him with those alone without which he cannot use the property at all; but if he can use it, even with some inconvenience, the said benefits need not be furnished.
2 Pomponius libro quinto ad Sabinum. Si ab herede ex testamento fundi usus fructus petitus sit, qui arbores deiecisset aut aedificium demolitus esset aut aliquo modo deteriorem usum fructum fecisset aut servitutes imponendo aut vicinorum praedia liberando, ad iudicis religionem pertinet, ut inspiciat, qualis ante iudicium acceptum fundus fuerit, ut usufructuario hoc quod interest ab eo servetur.
2 Pomponius, On Sabinus, Book V. Where suit is brought for an usufruct of land under a will, against an heir who has cut down trees, demolished the house, or, in any way, diminished the value of the usufruct, either by imposing servitudes upon the land, or by releasing servitudes from neighboring property, it is the duty of the judge to ascertain what the condition of the land was before issue was joined, in order that the usufructuary may be protected by him in the enjoyment of what he is entitled to.
3 Iulianus libro septimo digestorum. Qui usum fructum traditum sibi ex causa fideicommissi desiit in usu habere tanto tempore, quanto, si legitime eius factus esset, amissurus eum fuerit, actionem ad restituendum eum habere non debet: est enim absurdum plus iuris habere eos, qui possessionem dumtaxat usus fructus, non etiam dominium adepti sint.
3 Julianus, Digest, Book VII. Where a party to whom an usufruct was delivered in compliance with the terms of a trust, has ceased to use it for such a time as would have caused him to lose it if it had become his lawfully, he should not be granted an action for restitution; for it is absurd that parties who have only obtained possession of an usufruct and not the ownership of the same, should have the better right.
4 Idem libro trigensimo quinto digestorum. Fundus detracto usu fructu legatus est Titio et eiusdem fundi usus fructus Sempronio sub condicione: dixi interim cum proprietate usum fructum esse, licet placeat, cum detracto usu fructu fundus legatur, apud heredem usum fructum esse: quia pater familias cum detracto usu fructu fundum legat et alii usum fructum sub condicione, non hoc agit, ut apud heredem usus fructus remaneat.
4 The Same, Digest, Book XXXV. A tract of land was bequeathed to Titius, the usufruct having been reserved, and the usufruct of the same land was bequeathed to Sempronius, under a certain condition. I said that, in the meantime, the usufruct was united with the property, although it is settled that when land is bequeathed with reservation of the usufruct the usufruct remains with the heir, because when a testator bequeaths land with reservation of the usufruct, and the usufruct of the same to another under some condition, he does not do so intending that the usufruct shall remain with the heir.
5 Ulpianus libro septimo decimo ad edictum. Uti 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 servire: de suo enim, non de alieno iure quemque agere oportet. quamquam enim actio negativa domino competat adversus fructuarium, magis tamen de suo iure agere videtur quam alieno, cum invito se negat ius esse utendi fructuario vel sibi ius esse prohibendi. quod si forte qui agit dominus proprietatis non sit, quamvis fructuarius ius utendi non habet, vincet tamen iure, quo possessores sunt potiores, licet nullum ius habeant. 1Utrum autem adversus dominum dumtaxat in rem actio usufructuario competat an etiam adversus quemvis possessorem, quaeritur. et Iulianus libro septimo digestorum scribit hanc actionem adversus quemvis possessorem ei competere: nam et si fundo fructuario servitus debeatur, fructuarius non servitutem, sed usum fructum vindicare debet adversus vicini fundi dominum. 2Si partis fundi usus fructus constituatur, potest de eo in rem agi, sive vindicet quis usum fructum sive alii neget. 3In his autem actionibus, quae de usu fructu aguntur, etiam fructus venire plus quam manifestum est. 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. 4aFructuario qui vicit omnis causa restituenda est: et ideo si servi fuerit usus fructus legatus, quidquid ex re fructuarii vel ex operis suis consecutus est, possessor debebit restituere. 5Sed et si forte tempore usus fructus amissus est alio quidem possidente, alio autem liti se offerente, non sufficit eum usum fructum iterum renovare, verum cavere quoque eum de evictione usus fructus oportet: quid enim si servum aut fundum is qui possidebat pignori dedit isque ab eo qui pignori accepit iure uti prohibetur? debebit itaque habere cautum. 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. quid ergo officium erit iudicis quam hoc, ut securus consequatur fructuarius fruendi licentiam, proprietatis dominus, ne inquietetur?
5 Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XVII. He alone can claim the right to use and enjoy property who has the usufruct of the same; the owner of the land cannot do so, because he who holds the property has not a separate right to use and enjoy it, as his own property cannot be subject to servitudes for his own benefit; and it is necessary for a party to bring suit in his own right and not in the right of another. For although a prohibitive right of action will lie in favor of an owner against an usufructuary, he is considered still more to sue in his own right, rather than in that of another, when he denies that the usufructuary has the privilege of use against his will, or alleges that he has a right to prohibit him. But if it should happen that the party who brings the action is not the owner of the property, even though the usufructuary has not the right to use it, he will still prevail, on the principle that the condition of possessors is preferable, even though they may have no legal right. 1The question arises, whether the usufructuary has a right of action in rem only against the mere owner, or also against some possessor? Julianus states in the Seventh Book of the Digest, that he is entitled to this action against any possessor whomsoever; for where a servitude is attached to land which is subject to usufruct, the usufructuary should bring suit against the owner of the adjoining land, not for the recovery of the servitude, but for the recovery of the usufruct. 2Where an usufruct is created in part of an estate an action in rem can be brought with reference to it, if someone claims an usufruct in the same, or denies that another is entitled to it. 3In all those actions which are brought with reference to usufruct, it is perfectly evident that the crops are involved. 4If, after issue has been joined in a case of usufruct, the usufruct is terminated, can any crops be claimed subsequently? I thing that they cannot, for Pomponius states in the Fortieth Book, that if the usufructuary should die, his heir would be entitled to an action only for crops which were due before his decease. 4aEverything must be restored to the usufructuary who gains his case, and therefore where the usufruct of a slave is bequeathed, the possessor must surrender everything which he obtained by means of the property of the usufructuary, or from the labor of the slave. 5But if the usufruct should, perchance, be lost by lapse of time, one party being in possession, and another volunteering to defend the suit; it is not sufficient for the latter to renew the usufruct, but he must give security against its recovery by eviction. What if the party in possession had pledged a slave or the land for a debt, and the claimant should be forbidden by the person who received the pledge from making use of his right? Hence, he also will be entitled to security. 6Just as where the crops must be delivered to the usufructuary who brings an action in rem for his usufruct, they must likewise be delivered to the mere owner of the property, if he brings a prohibitory action. But, in any event, this is the case only where the party who brings suit is not the possessor; for the possessor is entitled to certain actions; but where either party is in possession he will obtain nothing by way of crops. Therefore, is it the duty of the judge to allow the usufructuary to have the privilege of enjoying the crops in security, and prevent the owner of the property from being disturbed?
6 Paulus libro vicensimo primo ad edictum. Qui de usu fructu iudicium accepit, si desierit possidere sine dolo, absolvetur: quod si liti se obtulit et quasi possessor actionem de usu fructu accepit, damnabitur.
6 Paulus, On the Edict, Book XXI. Where a party has joined issue with reference to an usufruct, he will be discharged if he relinquishes possession without fraud; but if he voluntarily undertook to defend the case, and joined issue as if he were the possessor, judgment shall be rendered against him.