Roman Law on Property

Under the law of property, we will be considering things ( res), how to acquire things and how to transfer them. The
word res included both things themselves and the rights on objects. One might not have the object itself, but you could
have a right over the object. Anything with an econimc value Is considered a thing. Therfore, as a consequence, a res
could either be something corporeal or incorporeal. The thing itself is corporeal, a right over the thing is incorporeal.
The latin terms for these are known as res corporales and res incorporales.

Res corporales: physical things which are tangible objects (e.g. a slave, a table, etc…)

Res incorporales: non-physical things i.e. a right belonging to someone which right has an economic value e.g. if a
person A has the right to Pasteur his cattle on the land of person B. That right has economic vale and it is a res
incorporales. It is in itself a thing however. That right has an economic value and it is a thing under Roman law of
property.

Gaius made the first subdivision of things: Humani Juris (things which come to us under man-made law) and Res
Divini Juris (things considered to fall under divine law).

Humani Juris is further sub-divided into Res Private and Res Publicae. The subdivisions are further subdivided into
Res Corporales, Res Incorporales, Ras Mancipi and Res Nec Mancipi.

Res Divini Juris entails a subdivision also; Res Religiose, Res Sacre and Res Sancte.

Res Humani Juris: things, the ownership of which was vested in human beings.

Res Privatae: things in private ownership

Res Publicae: things in public ownership (e.g. an aqueduct)

Res Mancipi: included all those things which were capable of being transferred only by one type of transfer, known as
mancipazio. Such things were like houses and lands in Italy and what is also known as rustic servitudes on Italian land.
Animals, such as an ox or a horse could only be transferred by the mode of mancipazio.

Res Nec Mancipi: all other things which could be transferred by any other mode of transfer. Example: public lands, wild
animals and agricultural implements. In all probability, all these things were considered as Res Nec Mancipi because
they belonged to an agricultural community which had various ways of transferring property from one person to
another. Also, in 531A.D. , Justinian abolished the formal distinction between Res Mancipi and Res Nec Mancipi.

Res Divini Juris: things in “divine ownership” (owned by the gods).

Res Religiose: things dedicated to the gods of the underworld e.g. family graves.

Res Sacre: things consecrated to the gods above e.g. altars, temples.

Res Sancte: things considered to be under the protection of the gods e.g. the walls of a city. Any offence against Res
Sancte was considered to be a capital offence.
Justinian’s Division

The first subdivision of Res was In Nostro Patrimonio and Extra Nostrum Patrimonio.

RES
In Nostro Patrimonio Extra Nostrum Patrimonio

Corporales Incorporales / Comunes Publicae Universitati Nulluis

Nulluis: Religiose Sacre Sancte

Res In Nostro Patrimonio: things vested in private ownership.

Res Extra Patrimonio: things not owned privately.

Res Comunes: things open to everyone.

Res Publice: a thing owned by the state e.g. a harbour.

Res Universitatis: things owned by a corporate body or a municipality e.g. the theatre owned by a town.

Res Nullius: Justinian, apart from three subdivisions, also extended Res Nullius to other things. It means things
belonging to no one. Anything which in general could not be privately owned was a Res Nullius. They could also be
things which could be owned privately but which at the moment had no owner e.g. a wild animal.

There are also other Res Mobiles (moveable) and Res Immobiles (immoveable). Land, for example was a Res
Immobiles. During the period of classical law, the Romans used to make a difference between Solum Proviciale (land
of the provinces outside Italy) and Solum Italico (land in Italy). By Justinian’s time this distinction had been abolished.

Another classification of things were those consumed by use and those not consumed in their use. Things which were
consumed by their use were things such as money, food or fuel. Things which were not consumed by

Res Fungibiles and Res Non Fungibiles were other categories of objects. Res Fungibiles were all those things which
could be numbered or measured or weighed e.g. corn, oil, fruit, etc… Res Non Fungibiles were things which could not
be measured. In the case of a slave, he was not a Res Fungibiles because it would be classified as a single unit.

In Roman law you can be the owner of a thing but not be in possession of it, or vice versa.

If A has a ring which is stolen by B, then A remains the owner of the ring, but B possesses the ring.

Also, if A rents a house to B, B is in possession of the house, but A is still the owner of the house.

Detenzio: the mere detention of a thing – “nautralis possession”. Detenzio gave no right to the person who holds it. A
person having detenzio of a thing is merely keeping it. If Detenzio is accompanied by “Animus Possidendi”, the will to
the intention to deal with as if he were an owner, if one has detention of a property and intends dealing with it as an
owner, then he is referred to as the “possessor”.

Possession in latin is different since detention and possessio gives rise to the person’s ownership of the thing. This
type of possessio was protected by praetorian interdicts.

DETENZIO + ANIMUS POSSIDENTI = OWNERSHIP

There is a distinction between Quiritary Ownership and Bonitary Ownership. Quiritary ownership was recognised as
conferring dominium (full ownership) under the Jus Civile. It was only available to Roman citizens and unless you
possessed Roman citizenship, you couldn’t possess Quiritary ownership of a thing.

Bonitary Onwership (derived from Bona meaning possessions) is a sort of exception: if a person took a thing that had
to be transferred through Mancipazio, but used another method (e.g. Tradizio) of transferring the thing, the praetor
used to give a certain protection even though the two parties had not used the right method. (since quinitary could not
be passed through such faulty method of transfer). The praetor used to thus sanction the deal made.

The Bonitary ownership was protected by the praetor. Bonitary ownership is something conferred by the praetor at a
later stage.

A has a horse and wants to transfer it to B. A is a Res Manicipi and thus Mancipazio had to be used. Tradizio is used
however, but the thing is transferred and paid for anyway. If A annuls the contract due to it not being done correctly, B
could ask protection by the praeot, who would grant B an exception to ownership. B’s ownership could not be Quinitary
ownership: the ownership would be Bonitary ownership.

There are ways of acquiring ownership under Jus Gensium and others under Jus Civile. (Place to hand-out)

Traditio meant the transfer of possession from A to B with the intention of transferring ownership and resulting in the
vesting of ownership in B. There were necessary conditions however: the property transferred had to be a Res Nec
Mancipi..

A must have the intention to transfer ownership to B and B must have the intention of receiving ownership. Such an
intention exists only when the transfer of ownership was done for a just cause which must have existed in the minds of
the parties.

A must be competent to transfer and B had to be competent to acquire in this method.

The property had to be capable of being delivered and of being acquired by delivery. In this way Res Incorporales
could not be transferred in this way, therefore.

The Res had to be transferred by the owner or his authorised agent.

Also, the transfer had to be physical or constructive delivery. Constructive delivery could be either Tradizio Brevi Manu,
this meant that when the person transferring was not the owner but the possessor. If A had a cart and he has lent the
cart to B, B is already using the horse and is in possession of it. If A decides to give the horse to B, then we find
Traditio Brevi Manu.

Traditio Longa Manu: in this case the property is placed inside of the transferee and he is asked to take it. If there is a
horse within view and the owner of the horse tells the transferee to take it, ownership passes by Longa Manu.

Symbolic Delivery happens when a person gives another person the keys to a granary (for example) and by handing
the keys over, he would be granting ownership to the grain in the granary.

Constutitum Possessorum is an agreement to possess. A owns a plough and keeps possession of it, but agrees with B
for B to own it. A thus keeps possession of the plough but transfers ownership to B.

In the case of a contract of sale, the transfer of ownership did not arise with delivery of the thing but when the price has
been paid. A sells B a house and gives the symbolic delivery of the house. Ownership howver, does not pass unless
the price has been paid. Delivery is not enough, there has to be the payment of the agreed price.

The intention with dealing with such a Res as if it were one’s property is known as Occupazio. Things captured from
the enemy, for example, generally became the property of the captors, however not in the case of land. Land captured
from the enemy became property of the state. Animals which are naturally wild (Ferae Naturae) became the property of
the person who took them and they remained his property as long as they were under his control.
The Animus Ritertendi entails a wild animal which has been tamed and the animal goes out and returns to the owner
after going out. As long as this habit is kept, then you remain the owner of the animal.

Specificatio:the creation from another’s material of a thing which is of a new kind. A owns wood and B makes a chair
out of the wood. A is the owner of the wood and B made the table. Justinian came up with the final solution: if the
article could not be brought back to its original form, it belonged to the maker. If it could be reduced again to its original
material, it belonged to the owner of the material. If any part of the new thing bwelonged to the maker, then the whole
thing also belonged to him.

A uses gold belonging to B to make an ornament. According to Justinian, since the chair could be reduced back to the
original, the thing belonged to the person who originally owned the final product. If the maker put n part of the material
himself, then he is the owner of the thing.

Accessio means accession. It occurs when two things under different ownership combine physically and cannot be
separated or restored to their original condition. By a mode of accessio, ownership may be transferred by chance even.

Alluvio

Plantatio happens when a person is planting seeds in his property but some of them fall in the adjacent property. If the
seeds do not germinate, the seeds belong to the original owner. If nthey germinate, they belong to the owner of the
property they fell on.

Natural Increment: the person who owned the female parent generally owns the offspring.

Commixtio and Confusio: solids or liquids which are mixed. Solids or liquids belonging to different persons, must be
determined whether they are easily distinguished and separated easily. Marked sheeps mixing with one another can
be separated easily. When grain is mixed however, the grain may not separated and there is common ownership.

Inedificatio involves buildings. The general rule was that anything built on the soil belonging to one, also belonged to
that one since the owner of the principal thing becomes the owner of the accessory to the land (i.e. the building). The
Romans here created a legal fiction: if A built a store on the land of B, B became the owner of the store, but by a legal
fiction B became the owner of the material used to build the store so if at any time the owner of the land decided to
dismantle the store, the builder had the right to take away the material.

If A using his own materials builds a store on B’s land, if A was in possession of that very land (he was renting it) and
was in bona fide, he could claim compensation from B for the materials used. If, on the contrary, A was not in
possession of the land and acted in bona fide, he could only claim the materials used when the building was
demolished.

Avusio: when a part of a person (A)’s land was swept away by the river and became attached to another (B)’s land. As
soon as any trees on this part of the person’s land took root, they become property of B.

Jus Pictura: the tablets where an accessory to the painting; the painting was the principal thing and thus the painter
was considered to be the owner of the painting. The painter was the owner of the paining because the tablet was
considered to be an accessory to the painging itself.

Fructum Perceptzio et Separazio: the right to acquire the fruits of the land and it included the produce of fields and
gardens under cultivation, the offspring of animals and rents collected from property.

Longi Temporis Prescripzio: prescription over a long period of time; by retaining provincial land and certain movables
for a period of ten years, or twenty years in other cases, the possessor of the provincial land or the movables, acquired
ownership. The difference between ten or twenty years was made by looking at the residence of the owner of the land
and the possessor of the land. If the owner and possessor lived in the same municipality and ten years passed without
the owner taking action to assert his right over the land, then after ten years of neglect, the possessor became owner
of the land itself.
There are conditions to this though: there must be possession. Detenzio does not apply in this case. Furthermore, the
land had to be capable of being alienated. The persons concerned had also to have Cummercium i.e. the right to have
property and make contracts. Also, there had to be a just title.

Modes of Property Under Ius Civile

Mancipatio

Mancipatio was a fictitious sale. Brutus is acquiring property by mancipatio from Cassius in the presence of five Roman
citizens and a Libripens (the person holding a balance). Brutus declares: “this property I declare to be mine by quiritary
right and has been bought by me with the bronze piece and bronze balance” he then strikes the balance with a piece of
bronze, which piece of bronze is given to Cassius as the price.

By using this formula and executing these actions, you could transfer a particular thing from one citizen to another, but
it had to be done in the presence of five Roman citizens plus libripens.

There were things which could only be transferred by this mode of transfer only: Res Mancipi. These things could only
be transferred in the mode above. Only Res Mancipi could be conveyed by mancipation.

If the property being transferred was immoveable, one couldn’t get the land or the house to the place of sale, so one
had a symbol of the land or the house and therefore what was required was a symbolic presence (e.g. keys to the
house).

Through the passage of time, Mancipatio was dropped and instead of it, Traditio took over.

In Jure Cessio

“In Jure Cessio”: meaning cession before the court. This was a transfer involving the fiction of vindication. If Brutus
wished to acquire property form Cassius by using In Jure Cessio; in front of a magistrate (because it is before the
court), Brutus gets hold of the property and says: “this thing I state to be mine ex jure quiritium”. The magistrate turns
to Cassius and asks whether Cassius wants to state a counterclaim. If Cassius is transferring the property, Cassius
would deny the counterclaim or remains silent. The magistrate thereby declares the thing to be Brutus’s.

The original owner of the thing is ceding the thing and the person who is acquiring vindicates the thing and the
magistrate awards the thing.

Jusufracts and Praedial servitudes could be created and extinguished in this manner.

Both mancipatio and in jure cessio became obsolete by the time of Justinian. The only things which could be acquired
in this manner (In Jure Cessio) were things which were capable of being acquired Ex Jure Quiritium.

Lege

Lege is the vesting of property in a person the right from a Lex. For example, a statute declaring land A, B and C to be
the property of a certain person.

Ad Judicatio

This means “by judicial award”. In actions brought by co-owners in front of a judge for the division of property, the
judge could divide the property amongst several owners according to their share. When two properties were next to
each other and the respective owners did not agree on the dividing line between the properties, they asked a judge to
establish the dividing line: “Actio Finis (or Finium) Recondorum”.
Litis Estimatio

Litis estimatio means the estimation of liability in a matter in issue. For example, a judge in an action brought about for
the restoration of property, is entitled to order the possessor of property to return it to the plaintiff (owner). However, the
plaintiff, might then estimate the property and the judge could allow the defendant to keep the property on the condition
that he paid its value to the plaintiff.

Donazio

You could acquire ownwer ship through donation and this could be doen in two ways: donations inter vivos and
donations causa mortis; the former being a donation whilst the donor was alive and the latter being after the death of
the owner. Donations could be revoked where the receiver of the donation had displayed considerable ingratitude to
the donor.

A gift to a freed man could be revoked only where the donor had been childless when the gift was made and where
children had been borne to him subsequently.

Under Justinian, gifts of 500 solidi and over had to be registered.

Gifts between spouses were prohibited, not only between the spouses, but among all the members of the two families.
Where such a gift was made, the transaction was void and the gift remained in the ownership of the donor. There were
4 exceptions however:
- In the case of a present involving moderate expense only
- In the case of customary gifts
- In the case of gift for maintenance a sum of money so the wife could maintain herself
- In the case of gifts made in contemplation of divorce or death

Donatio Ante Nupzias ( a gift before marriage): this type of donatio took the form of a settlement by the husband on the
wife and was intended as the husband’s share of the expenses of the marriage. It was made before the marriage
because donations between the spouses were not allowed.

Donatio PropterNupzias (a donation on account of marriage): this type of donation happened mostly in the time of
Justinian and afterwards. It was a settlement made by the husband on the wife and it could be made either before or
after the marriage. It rarely involved a transfer of property because the husband merely contracted to make a gift at a
future time.

Dos: a gift of anything which possessed monetary value. It was made by means of a written document by the wife or
someone on her behalf towards the matrimonial expenses.

In the case of rustic servitude, the mode of mancipatio could be used.

Servitude could be created by adjudicatio i.e. by judicial decision. When in a lawsuit, regarding the partition of land a
judge while dividing a land awarded the servitude of one portion over another.

Deductio or reservation could be used: a person could have a piece of land and transfer a part of it to another person.
He could however reserve a portion of the property and reserve himself some rights such as the right of passage.

By Testamento or will, another form of servitude could be created. A father in leaving property to his son makes a
disposition imposing on the son to allow another son to pass onto the property.

Longitemporis Presciptio is another form. In this case the servitude could be created (during the time of Justinain and
after) if it has been in use for ten years interpresentes (both persons living in the same province) and twenty years
interabsentes (both lving in different provinces).
Lege, the law, could itself stipulate that a servitude could be created in favour or in the case of a usufruct by law. The
property of such a person shall be held in usufruct by another person e.g. in the case of an emancipated son’s
property. If a married person dies leaving children under age, the property is subject by law is subject to the usufruct to
the mother.

How is a Servitude Extinguished?

There are six ways:

- By the destruction or complete change of the property so that the usefulness of the serving property ceases.

- Extinguishing a property by non-use, if you don’t make use of the servitude for a certina period of time (ten or twenty
years applying the interabsentes or interpresentes).

- Merger: if the dominant tenement and the servient tenement merge.

- Remissio is another way, meaning surrender. If the dominant tenement surrenders his right to the servient, the
servitude is also extinguished.

- Expiration of time: a servitude could be granted for a period of time. When the term lapses, the servitude is
extinguished because it was intended to last only for a specific amount of time.

- Death: The servitude can be extinguished by the death of the person who is enjoying the servitude. A person in his
will leaves a house to his children but makes a disposition stating that it shall be held in usufruct by his wife throughout
her whole life. The usufruct is a personal servitude of the wife. When the wife dies, the servitude is extinguished.

Predial Servitudes

Praedial comes from the word “praedium” (land). Land could be either Rustic or Urban. Praedial servitudes see a
dominant tenement and a servient tenement. The dominant tenement is the tenement which ghas the right and the
servient tenement is that which has the obligation.

The domninat is the kland which enjoys the right of passage whilst the servient is the land next to I allowing other the
right to passage.

The Rights allowed:

Rights of Way: the right to pass through land, the right to drive a carriage or animal to the alnd and the right to do both.
It also included the right of sailing over a permanent lake.

Right of Pasture: the right to put cattle or sheep to graze on another man’s land.

Rights to Water: leading water in pipes or in stow channels from a fountain through the land of another to your land.
This right to water could be of two kinds: permanent or summer only. It also allowed a man to drink from another man’s
fountain.

Miscelleanous rural servitudes: the right of quarrying stone from another man’s nloand or digging sand from someone
else’s land.

Rural Land rights:

The Right to support for a building, the Right to drive a timber beam into a neighbour’s wall, the right of preventing a
neighbour from increasing the height of his house (altius (alzius) non tolendi), the right to light. A servitude with the
right to light means that one has windows above or upon a shaft. The windows very often has two lights, not one. In old
contracts, we still find where sucha servitude is stipulated on a contract, one finds the words “servitu ad aria e luce”.
The right to space over a neighbour’s property.
Personal Servitudes:

Divided into Usufruct, Usus (Habitatio), Operae Servorum and Operae Animalum.

Previous servitudes were helds in virtue of the ownership of house or a land. Personal servitudes did not depend on
onwnership. The ownership belongs to someone else but the right of usufruct belongs to a different person.

Usufruct
A usufruct is a right to use and enjoy the fruits of another’s property provided that its substance remained unimpaired.
There are two things: if we take the usufruct of a house, the usufructuary can use the house provided that he does not
damage the house. How can he enjoy the fruits without using the house? By renting it he enjoys the fruits of the house
without using it. He can use the house himself or renting the house and enjoying the fruits.

It had to be a thing which is not consumed by use. It had to be a Res which is not consumed by use. The duration of
the usufruct: in the absence of an agreement that the usufruct should last for a specified period of time, the usufruct
lasted for the whole life of the usufractuarius.

The usufractuarius had to give security to the user and promising to restore the house or the land to its owner when the
usufruct ended – and to give him the property in a good state of maintanence.

The usufructury has to pay for all repairs.

What are the rights of the usufructuary?

The right of use and enjoyment of the fruits. If the property was a farm, the usufructuary had the use of the stock and
the use of the implements of the farm. The usufructuary had the right to open mines in the alnds and the right to fish.
He also had the right to the offspring of the cattle and the milk and the wool of the animals but he had also duties.

He had the duty to no to alter the character of a building. He had to deal with the property as a good pater familias. He
had to carry out repairs and pay any taxes which were due oin the land during the period of the usufruct. As a final
point, regarding the creation and termination of a usufruct, they were the same as we have considered under
servitudes.

Usus
It is a usufruct without the right to take the fruits. He thus only has the right to uise the property. This right is limited to
the personal necessities of the usuarius and his family. He could not alientate the property: he had to use it himself.

Duties of the Usuarius

Not to alter the character of the property and to share the expenses of repairs to the proerty with the owner.

Habitatio is the same as usus: the right to use the house belonging to another for habitation. Usus is wider whilst
habitatio is limited to a house.

Emphyteutes

Amphitueses is a ground of full rights of ownership over the land of another either in perpetuity or for a long period of
time. This grant is subject to two conditions: forfeiture under particular circumstances or subject to the payment of a
yearly rent.

It could be lost in certain circumstances and it ws conditioned on the payment of a yearly rent. Amphiteuses is neither
ownership nor lease. The amphitueter is the one who receives the amphiteutes. If he failed to pay the rent for 3 years
he could be evicted. He had to cultivate the land, and manage the property so that it’s value will not fall. He had to pay
taxes on the land and deliver receipts to the owner. HE could use and enjoy the land and its fruits and he could also
alienate or pass the amphiteuses to his heirs. He could modify the character of the land provided he did not damage it.
How did he forfeit his amphiteutes? If he failed to pay the land, if he allowed the property to deteriorate or if he tried to
transfer the amphitueses without giving notice of sale to the previous owner.

Dominus (owner of the land)

The dominus could have the right of pre-emption: the right to recover the land himself. Thus, if the emphytuta was
going to sell the property, the owner could use this right and buy back the emphytetus himself.

If the owner tried to evict the emphytuta by not accepting the rent, the emphytuta in the presence of a witness could
deposit the money in a sealed container and if he did this it was enough for satisfying the obligation of paying the rent.

Under other rights in Jura Aliena we have mortagages and pinius and pinoteca.

The Trial Proceedings

The plaintiff outlined his claim and asked the magistrate to grant him a particular action. If the claim fitted an action
which was outlined in the praetor’s edict, the request was granted. If it did not fit an action, it was not granted, however,
where possible the magistrate would grant a special kind of action ( Actio in Factum).

During proceedings In Jure, the magistrate had to consider certain matters:

1) The magistrate had to examine the matter brought before him and had to see whether the claim being proposed by
the plaintiff actually fell within the parameters of formulary proceeding.

2) The magistrate had to see whether the parties had the capacity of bringing an action or to defend an action.

3) The magistrate had to see and decide whether the parties had the capacity to plead the action before the court.

Having said this, we have to see what the role of the defendant was during the stage of proceedings in Europe:

 The defendant could admit the claim.

 He could deny the plaintiff’s facts or rthe plaintiff’s rights, meaning he would contest the claim.
 The defendant could accept the plaintiff’s statement of facts and rights but at the same time he might assert
other reasons or matters which legally barred the action (and ask for an exceptio).
 The defendant could, in certain cases, neither accept not deny the plaintiff’s claim and not even ask for an
exceptio.

Having done that, the parties would pass to the second stage. Before this however, they had to choose the judge. It
could be either one judge or a group of judges. In the case of one judge, it had to be a free male person aged 25 or
over who had his name inscribed in the official list of judges.

The plaintiff and the defendant had to agree on the person who they wanted to choose to judge the case. If the
defendant continued to disagree, he would be rendered as if it had not been defended.

Once the type of action had been agreed upon and the judge nominated, we have the formula drafted. Once the
formula had been drafted, the magistrate would issue the action for the trial to begin. Once this stage was reached
(Litis Contestatio – jointer of the issue) it brought about 4 effects:

1. Both parties were from then on obliged to accept the judgement.

2. The plaintiff could not bring another action on the same subject-matter.
3. The property which formed the subject-matter of the action could not be alienated until the action had been decided.
4. Any period of prescription or limitation imposed by law on the right of action was interrupted.
With the litis contestazio ready, the parties would go before the judge and proceedings iniu dicio has 3 points to
consider:

1. The terms of reference of the judge were based strictly on the formula.
2. The judge was obliged to hear evidence from both parties.
3. Judgement had to be pronounced in the presence of both parties.

Groups or boards of judges normally set in cases which involved public issues e.g. cases where the liberty of a person
was involved. Decision was made by majority and if it so happened that there was an equal vote cast, then that type of
decision was considered to be a decision in favour of the defendant.

The formula was drawn up in proceedings in Europe and it included:

1. Denomination of a judge.
2. A statement of the issue to be trialled.
3. A direction to the judge either to condemn or to absolve the defendant.

Formulas had clauses and had five major clauses and two others:

1. Nominatio: The nomination of the judge.

2. Demonstratio: The statement of the facts upon which the claim was based.
3. Intentio: Statement of the question which had to be considered and decided by the judge.
4. Adjudicatio: A direction to the judge by the magistrate to decide shares.
5. Condemnatio: A direction to the judge either to absolve or to condemn the defendant.

Minor Clauses:

1. Prescriptio (between Nominatio and demonstratio): a clause which limited the parameters of the action. For example
A gives Lm 1000 loan to B. B has to pay back in instalments of Lm100 each. If B did not pay two instalments
and A brought an action forward against B, B had to be condemned for owing Lm200. Therefore, without
harming his rights for other instalments, A limits the request to the two months not being paid for.
2. Exceptio (between Adjudicatio and condemnatio) a negative clause alleging certain facts which, if proven by the
defendant, would defeat the plaintiff’s claim.

To study:

Amphitueses, servitudes, jura in re aliena, usufruct

Transfer of property: definitions of various modes of transfer