Article — Billuart, Summa Summae · from Schola Thomistica
On possession
I answer. Possession is said from the position of the feet, because over immovables it is usually acquired by the position of feet. It is commonly defined: "Detention of a thing with the aid of body, mind, and right."
Resp. Possessio dicitur a pedum positione, quia per pedum positionem super immobilia solet acquiri. Defini tur communiter : « Detentio rei adminiculo corporis, animi et iuris. »
It is explained. It is said, "detention:" under which name is understood also the first apprehension, which is the beginning and acquisition of possession.
Explicatur. Dicitur, « detentio : » quo nomine intelligitur etiam prima apprehensio, qua est possessionis inceptio et acquisitio.
It is said, "of a thing," not only corporeal, as a field, a house, or movables, but also incorporeal, as an annuity, a benefice, a servitude, and similar rights, which are said to be possessed in a manner.
Dicitur, « rei, » non solum corporeae, ut agri, domus, aut mobilium, sed etiam incorporeae, ut census, beneficii, servitutis, et similium iurium, quae dicuntur quasi possideri.
It is said, "with the aid of the body;" because it does not begin, nor is it possession, unless there comes an external or corporeal act by which the thing is apprehended by foot, hand, eyes, or some similar way, in itself or in another in which it is held to be contained, as I shall say presently.
Dicitur, « adminiculo corporis; » quia non incipit, nec est possessio, nisi adveniat actus externus seu corporeus, quo vel pede, vel manu, vel oculis, vel alio simili modo apprehendatur res in se vel in alio in quo contineri censeatur, ut dicam modo.
It is said, "with the aid of the mind;" because the intention of possessing and holding the thing for oneself and not for another is required. Hence a depositary does not properly possess the deposit, nor a tutor the goods of a minor.
Dicitur, « adminiculo animi; » quia requiritur intentio rem sibi et non alteri possidendi et detinendi. Unde depositarius non proprie possidet depositum, nec tutor bona pupilli.
It is said, "with the aid of right," not that it is necessary that right approve it, otherwise every possession would be just, but because for possession it is required that right not impede the detention of a thing from being held its possession. For this reason, detention of a sacred thing by a layman is not possession, not even of fact, since right prohibits it; but detention of a stolen profane thing, though unjust, is nevertheless true possession of fact, because right does not impede the detention of such a thing from sufficing for possession.
Dicitur, « adminiculo iuris, » non quod necesse sit ut ius eam approbet, alias omnis possessio foret iusta, sed quia ad possessionem requiritur ut ius non impediat quin rei detentio censeatur eius possessio. Qua de causa, detentio rei sacrae a laico non est possessio, nequidem facti, iure id prohibente; detentio vero rei furtiva profanae, licet iniusta, est tamen vera possessio facti, quia ius non impedit quin talis rei detentio sufficiat ad possessionem.
I answer. Among the various divisions of possession (for one is just, another unjust, one in one's own name, another in another's name), the principal is into civil, natural, and most civil.
Resp. Inter varias possessionis divisiones (alia enim est iusta, alia iniusta, alia proprio nomine, alia alterius nomine), praecipua est in civilem, naturalem et civilissimam.
Civil is that which, begun with the aid of the body, is retained and continued by the aid of the mind alone. Thus he possesses civilly who is absent from his things, but holds and occupies them as his own in mind and faculty, so long as he is not cast out of possession by another. It is called civil, because it rests more on civil than on natural law, since the natural mode of possessing is by bodily insistence, and also because it produces a civil effect, namely prescription.
Civilis est quae corporis adminiculo inchoata, solius animi adminiculo retinetur et continuatur. Sic civiliter possidet, qui abest a rebus suis, sed animo et facultate eas retinet et occupat ut suas, quamdiu per alium a possessione non deiicitur. Dicitur civilis, quia magis constat iure civili quam naturali, cum modus naturalis possidendi sit per corporalem insistentiam, et etiam quia parit effectum civilem, scilicet praescriptionem.
Natural is that by which a thing is occupied by body and mind together. But one is held to occupy corporally when he is so near the thing that he can be present to it immediately. This natural possession can be separated from civil: for a thief, e. g., possesses my thing naturally, I civilly, until by abstraction of it from place to place it is put outside my custody; for then I am cast out of civil possession.
Naturalis est qua res corpore simul et animo occupatur. Censetur autem quis corporaliter occupare, quando ita rei vicinus est, ut illi possit continuo adesse. Haec naturalis possessio potest separari a civili : nam fur, v. g., rem meam possidet naturaliter, ego civiliter, donec per abstractionem eius de loco in locum ponatur extra meam custodiam ; tunc enim a civili possessione deiicior.
Most civil is that which is acquired by the sole disposition of law, even by one who knows nothing of it, and therefore without the aid of body and mind. Thus the infant heir possesses the inheritance of the deceased, especially in France and the country of Liege, where the dead clothes the living: Le mort saisit le vif. The reason is, because the mode of acquiring possession is subject to human law, which can establish diverse modes according as it seems more expedient for the commonwealth.
Civilissima est qua sola legis dispositione acquiritur, etiam ab inscio, adeoque sine corporis et animi adminiculo. Sic haeres parvulus defuncti haereditatem possidet, praesertim in Gallia et patria Leodiensi, ubi mortuus induit vivum : Le mort saisit le vif. Ratio est, quia modus acquirendae possessionis humano iuri subiacet, quod potest diversos modos statuere, prout magis videtur expedire reipublicae.
You will ask thirdly whether, possession lost, dominion is always lost.
Petes 3° utrum, amissa possessione, semper amittatur dominium.
I answer negatively. For of a thing lost or taken by theft I lose possession, yet not dominion.
Resp. negative. Etenim rei amissae vel furto ablatae amitto possessionem, non tamen dominium.
You will ask fourthly what are the privileges of possession.
Petes 4° qua sint privilegia possessionis.
I answer. The chief privileges of possession are: first, that it produces prescription; second, that in doubt the condition of the possessor is better; third, that it is not for the possessor to prove that the thing is his, but for the assailant to prove that it is not. Concerning possession see more among the interpreters of the laws.
Resp. Praecipua privilegia possessionis sunt : primum, quod pariat praescriptionem; secundum, quod in dubio sit melior conditio possidentis; tertium, quod non sit possessoris probare quod res sit sua, sed oppugnantis probare quod non sit. De possessione vide plura apud legum interpretes.