bonitarian ownership (in bonis)
bonitarian ownership (in bonis)
I believe it refers to this type of property dealt with by Roman Law.
In course of time when Bonitarian ownership (in bonis) was fully established and co-existed with Quiritarian ownership, this new kind of ownership was attributed to the Bonorum Possessor, after he had acquired the Bonorum Possessio, and thus all that belonged to the deceased ex jure Quiritium became his in bonis and finally by Usucapion, ex jure Quiritum; though in the mean time he had most of the practical advantages of Quiritarian ownership. Ultimately the Bonorum Possessio came to be considered as a species of hereditas, and the like forms of procedure to those in the case of the real hereditas were applied to the case of the Bonorum Possessio; thus arose the possessoria hereditatis petitio, which is mentioned by Gaius, and cannot therefore be of later origin than the time of Marcus Aurelius. Thus the new form of procedure, which would have rendered the Interdict Quorum Bonorum unnecessary, if it had been introduced sooner, co-existed with the Interdict, and a person might avail himself of either mode of proceeding, as he found best (Gaius, iii.34). In the legislation of Justinian, we find both forms of procedure mentioned, though that of the Interdict has altogether fallen into disuse (Inst. 4 15).
USUCAPIO. The history of Usucapio is an important fact in the history of Roman Jurisprudence. Usucapio is the acquisition of Quiritarian ownership by continuous possession; consequently, it is not possible in the case of a Peregrinus nor is it applicable to provincial land.
Gaius (ii.40 42) states that there was originally in Rome only one kind of ownership: a person was either owner of a thing Ex jure Quiritium, or he was not owner at all. But afterwards ownership was divided, so that one man might be owner Ex jure Quiritium, and another might have the same thing In bonis, that is, have the right to the exclusive enjoyment of it. He then goes on to give an instance of the mode in which the divided ownership might arise by reference to the transfer of a Res Mancipi: if such a thing was transferred by bare tradition, and there was neither Mancipatio nor In jure cessio, the new owner only acquired the natural ownership, as some would call it, or only had it In bonis, and the original owner retained the Quiritarian ownership until the purchaser acquired the Quiritarian ownership by Usucapio (possidendo usucapiat); for when the Usucapio was completed, the effect was the same as if the thing had been originally mancipated or transferred by the In jure cessio. Gaius adds, "in the case of moveable things the Usucapio is completed in a year, but in the case of a fundus or aedes two years are required; and so it is provided by the Twelve Tables."
In this passage he is evidently speaking of Res Mancipi only, and of them only when transferred to the purchaser by the owner without the forms of Mancipatio or in Jure Cessio. From this then it might be safely concluded that the Twelve Tables provided a remedy for defective modes of conveyance of Res Mancipi from the owner; and this is all that could be concluded from this passage. But a passage which immediately follows shows that this was all that the Twelve Tables did; for Gaius (ii.43) proceeds to say, "But (Ceterum) there may be Usucapio even in the case of those things which have come to us by tradition from a person who was not the owner, whether they are Res Mancipi or not, provided we have received them bona fide, believing that he who delivered (qui tradiderit) them to us was the owner. And this rule of law seems to have been established, in order that the ownership of things might not be long in uncertainty, seeing that one or two years would be quite sufficient for the owner to look after his property, that being the time allowed to the Possessor for Usucapio."
In order to acquire by usucapio, a person must have the capacity of Roman ownership; consequently all persons were excluded from acquiring by Usucapio who had not the Commercium. The passage quoted by Cicero (de Offic. i.12) from the Twelve Tables, "adversum hostem (i.e. peregrinum) aeterna auctoritas," is alleged in support of this rule of law; that is, a Peregrinus may have the use of a Res Mancipi which has been transferred by traditio, but he can never acquire anything more by Usucapio.