按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
（Acquisitio per Usucapionem）。
I may acquire the property of another merely by long possession
and use of it （usucapio）。 Such property is not acquired； because I may
legitimately presume that his consent is given to this effect （per
consensum praesumptum）； nor because I can assume that； as he does
not oppose my acquisition of it； he has relinquished or abandoned it
as his （rem derelictam）。 But I acquire it thus because； even if
there were any one actually raising a claim to this property as its
true owner； I may exclude him on the ground of my long possession of
it； ignore his previous existence； and proceed as if he existed during
the time of my possession as a mere abstraction； although I may have
been subsequently apprized of his reality as well as of his claim。
This mode of acquisition is not quite correctly designated acquisition
by prescription （per praescriptionem）； for the exclusion of all
other claimants is to be regarded as only the consequence of the
usucapion； and the process of acquisition must have gone before the
right of exclusion。 The rational possibility of such a mode of
acquisition has now to be proved。
Any one who does not exercise a continuous possessory activity
（actus possessorius） in relation to a thing as his is regarded with
good right as one who does not at all exist as its possessor。 For he
cannot complain of lesion so long as he does not qualify himself
with a title as its possessor。 And even if he should afterwards lay
claim to the thing when another has already taken possession of it； he
only says he was once on a time owner of it； but not that he is so
still； or that his possession has continued without interruption as
a juridical fact。 It can； therefore； only be a juridical process of
possession； that has been maintained without interruption and is
proveable by documentary fact； that any one can secure for himself
what is his own after ceasing for a long time to make use of it。
For； suppose that the neglect to exercise this possessory activity
had not the effect of enabling another to found upon his hitherto
lawful； undisputed and bona fide possession； and irrefragable right to
continue in its possession so that he may regard the thing that is
thus in his possession as acquired by him。 Then no acquisition would
ever become peremptory and secured； but all acquisition would only
be provisory and temporary。 This is evident on the ground that there
are no historical records available to carry the investigation of a
title back to the first possessor and his act of acquisition。 The
presumption upon which acquisition by usucapion is founded is；
therefore； not merely its conformity to right as allowed and just； but
also the presumption of its being right （praesumtio juris et de jure）；
and its being assumed to be in accordance with compulsory laws
（suppositio legalis）。 Anyone who has neglected to embody his
possessory act in a documentary title has lost his claim to the
right of being possessor for the time； and the length of the period of
his neglecting to do so… which need not necessarily be particularly
defined… can be referred to only as establishing the certainty of this
neglect。 And it would contradict the postulate of the juridically
practical reason to maintain that one hitherto unknown as a possessor；
and whose possessory activity has at least been interrupted； whether
by or without fault of his own； could always at any time re…acquire
a property； for this would be to make all ownership uncertain （dominia
rerum incerta facere）。
But if he is a member of the commonwealth or civil union； the
state may maintain his possession for him vicariously； although it may
be interrupted as private possession； and in that case the actual
possessor will not be able to prove a title of acquisition even from a
first occupation； nor to found upon a title of usucapion。 But； in
the state of nature； usucapion is universally a rightful ground of
holding； not properly as a juridical mode of requiring a thing； but as
a ground for maintaining oneself in possession of it where there are
no juridical acts。 A release from juridical claims is commonly also
called acquisition。 The prescriptive title of the older possessor；
therefore； belongs to the sphere of natural right （est juris naturae）。
34。 II。 Acquisition by Inheritance。
（Acquisitio haereditatis）。
Inheritance is constituted by the transfer （translatio） of the
property or goods of one who is dying to a survivor； through the
consent of the will of both。 The acquisition of the heir who takes the
estate （haeredis instituti） and the relinquishment of the testator who
leaves it； being the acts that constitute the exchange of the mine and
thine； take place in the same moment of time… in articulo mortis…
and just when the testator ceases to be。 There is therefore no special
act of transfer （translatio） in the empirical sense； for that would
involve two successive acts； by which the one would first divest
himself of his possession； and the other would thereupon enter into
it。 Inheritance as constituted by a simultaneous double act is；
therefore； an ideal mode of acquisition。 Inheritance is
inconceivable in the state of nature without a testamentary
disposition （dispositio ultimae voluntatis）； and the question arises
as to whether this mode of acquisition is to be regarded as a contract
of succession； or a unilateral act instituting an heir by a will
（testamentum）。 The determination of this question depends on the
further question； whether and how； in the very same moment in which
one individual ceases to be； there can be a transition of his property
to another person。 Hence the problem； as to how a mode of
acquisition by inheritance is possible； must be investigated
independently of the various possible forms in which it is practically
carried out； and which can have place only in a commonwealth。
〃It is possible to acquire by being instituted or appointed heir
in a testamentary disposition。〃 For the testator Caius promises and
declares in his last will to Titius； who knows nothing of this
promise； to transfer to him his estate in case of death； but thus
continuing as long as he lives sole owner of it。 Now by a mere
unilateral act of will； nothing can in fact be transmitted to
another person； as in addition to the promise of the one party there
is required acceptance （acceptatio） on the part of the other； and a
simultaneous bilateral act of will （voluntas simultanea） which；
however； is here awanting。 So long as Caius lives； Titius cannot
expressly accept in order to enter on acquisition； because Caius has
only promised in case of death； otherwise the property would be for
a moment at least in common possession； which is not the will of the
testator。 However； Titius acquires tacitly a special right to the
inheritance as a real right。 This is constituted by the sole and
exclusive right to accept t