Question — Bontempi, Palladium Theologicum V · from Schola Thomistica
Question IV: Whether an heir instituted in a testament invalid at civil law through defect of solemnity can take the inheritance in the forum of conscience, despoiling the heir who succeeds on intestacy
THE first opinion is that the will of the testator is to be executed, and consequently that the heir, though invalid by civil law, can in conscience take possession of the inheritance. So Innoc. in cap. sicut de elect. and in cap. celebrata de cler. excom. Abbas in cap. Quae plerique, de immun. Eccl. Iason. in l. Nemo potest, de legatis, where it is had expressly from c. ultima voluntas, 13. quaest. 2. deduced from the Decretals of D. Gregory Pope there: The last will of the deceased ought to be preserved in every way. Which the Doctors understand of testaments of this kind. So also Bartholus in Minor. l. 1. cap. 3. ad l. Nemo potest, ff. de legatis 1. and other Jurists, as in Couar. in cap. cum esses, de testam. Fagundium de contr. l. 6. cap. 7. Sotus l. 4. de iust. quaest. 5. art. 3. Medin. de rebus restituat. quaest. 23. Adrian. quodl. 6. Molina T. 1. de iust. disp. 81. Less. l. 2. cap. 19. dub. 3. Sylvest. v. haered. quaest. 7. Reginald. l. 25. num. 105. Bassaeus v. Haeres.
An possit haeres institutus in testamento, e defectu solemnitatis invalido iure civili, haereditatem in conscientia foro adire, spoliando haeredem succedentem ab intestato.
PRIMA opinio est exequendam voluntatem testatoris, ac proinde in conscientia posse haeredem illum, iure civili invalidum, adire haereditatem. Ita Innoc. in cap. sicut de elect. et in cap. celebrata de cler. excom. Abbas in cap. Quae plerique, de immun. Eccl. Iason. in l. Nemo potest, de legatis, 1. habetur expresse ex c. ultima voluntas, 13. quaest. 2. deducto e Decretalibus D. Greg. Papae ibi: Ultima voluntas defuncti, modis omnibus servari debet. Quod intelligunt Doctores de testamentis huiusmodi. Ita et Bartholus in Minor. l. 1. cap. 3. ad l. Nemo potest, ff. de legatis 1. et alii Iuristae apud Couar. in cap. cum esses, de testam. Fagundium de contr. l. 6. cap. 7. Sotus l. 4. de iust. quaest. 5. art. 3. Medin. de rebus restituat. quaest. 23. Adrian. quodl. 6. Molina T. 1. de iust. disp. 81. Less. l. 2. cap. 19. dub. 3. Sylvest. v. haered. quaest. 7. Reginald. l. 25. num. 105. Bassaeus v. Haeres.
THE NEGATIVE, on the contrary, is upheld by Cevallos l. 2. contr. com. quaest. 71. Bald. in l. 1. num. 55. C. de Sacros. Eccles. Couar. in cap. cum esses de testam. de Gomez in l. 3. Tauri, num. 121. Spino in speculo testam. gloss. 8. Cenedo 2. p. collect. 67. ad Decretal. Menchaca de success. creat. §. 2. Gutierrez l. 2. qq. Canonic. cap. 5. Cervant in l. 3. Tauri, num. 189. Ledesm. 2. 4. quaest. 18. art. 1. dub. 12. Victoria 2. 2. de restitut. initio, Sotus l. 4. de iust. quaest. 5. art. 3.
NEGATIVAM e regione sustinent Cevallos l. 2. contr. com. quaest. 71. Bald. in l. 1. num. 55. C. de Sacros. Eccles. Couar. in cap. cum esses de testam. de Gomez in l. 3. Tauri, num. 121. Spino in speculo testam. gloss. 8. Cenedo 2. p. collect. 67. ad Decretal. Menchaca de success. creat. §. 2. Gutierrez l. 2. qq. Canonic. cap. 5. Cervant in l. 3. Tauri, num. 189. Ledesm. 2. 4. quaest. 18. art. 1. dub. 12. Victoria 2. 2. de restitut. initio, Sotus l. 4. de iust. quaest. 5. art. 3.
THESE, however, are divided; for Sotus, Victoria, and others in Couar. hold that the civil laws concede to the successor ab intestato restitution in the external forum, and retention in the internal, not the translation of dominion to him, but to prevent its being transferred. Others, however, concede even this, with whom subscribe Malderus, Salas, Becanus, Vasquez, Bonacina, and others, as in Diana p. 1. tract. 8. resol. 75.
DIVISI tamen sunt hi; nam Sotus, Victoria, et alii apud Couar. volunt, iura civilia concedere successoris ab intestato repetitionem in foro externo, et retentionem in interno, non dominii in eos translationem, sed impedire ne transferatur. Alii vero hanc etiam concedunt, quibus subscribit Malderus, Salas, Becanus, Vasquez, Bonacina, et alii apud Dianam p. 1. tract. 8. resol. 75.
THIS seems to be the opinion of D. Bonav. in 2. dist. 44. art. 2. et 3. and in 4. dist. 18. D. Thom. 1. 2. quaest. 62. art. 4. and of as many as assert that the laws of Princes oblige also in the forum of the pole, whom I cited in tract. de Legibus, disp. 5. quaest. 1. et 2.
HAEC videtur sententia D. Bonav. in 2. dist. 44. art. 2. et 3. et in 4. dist. 18. D. Thom. 1. 2. quaest. 62. art. 4. et quotquot asserunt, leges Principum iustas obligare etiam in foro Poli, quos retuli tract. de Legibus, disp. 5. quaest. 1. et 2.
THIS grave decision is extended to all civil contracts, so that those who are void by civil law are such also in the forum of conscience.
HAEC gravis decisio extenditur ad omnes contractus civiles, ut qui iure civili sunt irriti; tales sint etiam in foro conscientiae.
MANY, however, follow a middle way, that if the will of the testator be fully established, the heir instituted in a less solemn testament can retain the inheritance. This common opinion Fagund. strengthens num. 6. with Couar. ad cap. cum esses, de testam. and with the authors of the first opinion they bring forward others.
MULTI tamen mediam sectantur viam, ut si de testatoris voluntate plena constet, e testamento minus solemni possit haeres institutus haereditatem detinere. Hanc communem sententiam astruit Fagund. num. 6. cum Couar. ad cap. cum esses, de testam. et cum authoribus primae sententiae alios adducunt.
THEY SAY second, that if the heir ab intestato reasonably opine, or doubt, that some fraud has been introduced into that testament, he can justly act for its rescission; Fagund. agrees num. 12. with many in Couar. loc. cit.
DICUNT secundo, Si haeres ab intestato rationabiliter opinetur, aut dubitet, fraudem aliquam esse invectam in eo testamento, posse iuste agere ad rescissionem, consentit Fagund. num. 12. cum multis apud Couar. loc. cit.
I ASSERT with the second opinion that it is probable that the Heir ab intestato can rescind a testament in which another is instituted without solemnity, and that in the meantime the inheritance cannot safely be taken possession of by one so instituted.
ASSERO cum secunda sententia, probabile esse, Haeredem ab intestato posse rescindere testamentum, in quo alter absque solemnitate instituitur, nec interim secure haereditatem adiri a taliter instituto.
IT IS PROVED first: The laws of Princes, being just, oblige in the forum of the pole; but the Laws decree that heirs instituted without solemnity are excluded, l. hac consultissima, Cod. de testam. and Instit. Quibus modis testamenta infirmentur, §. penult. and these are received throughout the whole world, as just, and most gravely necessary for the public good, lest the resources of the dying be squandered by frauds: Therefore. The major is broadly demonstrated in l. c. de Legibus.
PROBATUR primo: Leges Principum iustae obligant in foro poli; at Leges decernunt haeredes institutos absque solemnitate esse exclusos l. hac consultissima, Cod. de testam. et Instit. Quibus modis testamenta infirmentur, §. penult. et hae toto orbe receptae sunt, ut iustae, et ad bonum publicum gravissime necessariae, ne facultates morientium dilapidentur fraudibus: Ergo. Maior late demonstrata est l. c. de Legibus.
IT IS PROVED second from other laws which so dispose, and void in order to avoid frauds, nor do they lack effect even with the fraud removed, as in the alienation of pupils, etc., which therefore is null also in the forum of conscience.
PROBATUR secundo ex aliis legibus ita disponentibus, et irritantibus ad vitandas fraudes, nec carent effectu etiam fraude amota, ut in alienatione pupillorum etc. quae nulla idco est etiam in foro conscientiae.
I ASSERT second. If the will of the testator be rightly established in the forum of conscience, the heir can safely in conscience take possession of the inheritance. This is D. Bonaventure's, as I shall show.
ASSERO secundo. Si rite in foro conscientiae constet voluntas testatoris, secure haeredem in conscientia adire haereditatem. Est D. Bonaventurae, ut ostendam.
IT IS PROVED first. The laws of Princes are just, and oblige in conscience, which are consonant with the law of nature, and much more if they are thus interpreted by the Legislator: But it is of the law of nature that inheritances be of those to whom the legitimate owners justly leave them, and to this sense even the civil laws come: Therefore. The major is evident, from what was said de Legibus, disp. 1. quaest. 4. and disp. 2. quaest. 6. The minor is shown from both Laws, the Canonical, and the CIVIL.
PROBATUR primo. Leges Principum iustae sunt, et in conscientia obligant, quae iuri naturae sunt consonae, et multo magis si ita exponantur a Legislatore: Sed iuris naturae est, ut haereditates sint eorum, quibus legitimi domini iuste eas relinquunt, et ad hunc sensum veniunt iura etiam civilia: Ergo. Maior est evidens, ex dictis de Legibus, disp. 1. quaest. 4. et disp. 2. quaest. 6. Minor ostenditur ex utroque Iure, Canonico, et CIVILI.
And indeed Pope Innocent in cap. quod sicut, and in C. quia propter, de elect. thus decrees: If any election be valid by the law of nature and of nations, even though the solemnities required by civil or canon law be lacking, it is valid in the forum of the pole, because the solemnities of positive law were invented only to avoid frauds, and in the forum of conscience natural truth is to be preferred. But this is consonant with the law of nature, that the transmission of inheritances be taken from the will of the Lord: it is proved in the Institution de rerum divis. §. per traditionem; where it is said: Nothing is so conformable to natural equity as that the will of the owner, willing to transfer his thing to another, be held valid.
Et quidem Innocent. Papa in cap. quod sicut, et in C. quia propter, de elect. sic decernit: Si electio aliqua iure naturae, et gentium, valida sit, tametsi defint solemnitates iure civili, vel canonico requisitae, validam esse in foro poli, quia solemnitates iuris positivi inventae sunt solum ad vitandas fraudes, et in foro conscientiae veritas naturalis est praeferenda. Id autem iuri naturae est consonum, ut haereditatum transmissio sumatur e Domini voluntate: probatur Institutione de rerum divis. §. per traditionem; ubi dicitur: Nihil tam conveniens naturali aequitati, quam voluntatem domini, volentis rem suam in alium transferre, ratam haberi.
THAT the civil laws themselves thus unfold in the forum of the soul is proved from Authent. de nuptiis, §. disponat. collat. 4. where it is related that the last will of the deceased is to be preserved as law. And in C. ultima voluntas, causa 13. quaest. 2. these words are had: The last will of the deceased ought to be preserved in every way. But more formal is the text in leg. inutiliter, Cod. de fideicommiss. where, when the Emperor had said that in a less solemn testament a fideicommissum left is uselessly left, namely that for exacting it no action be granted in a judicial forum, he adds: If the heirs, having discovered the will of the deceased, had performed it, it cannot thereafter be reclaimed. The Emperor gives the reason, Because satisfaction seems to have been made to the will of the deceased not from the writing alone, but from the conscience of the fideicommissum left. It is confirmed by the consensus of Jurists saying that a less solemn testament has such force that the legacies left in it can not only be possessed in the forum of conscience by a legatee in possession, but be defended in a judicial forum by a legitimate exception: so Bartol. ad leg. Nemo potest, ff. de legatis, and others, as is clear from Gamma decis. 347. and Claro §. Testamentum quaest. 90.
QUOD vero ipsa iura civilia ita in foro animae se explicent, probatur Authent. de nuptiis, §. disponat. collat. 4. ubi refertur, ultimam defuncti voluntatem pro lege servandam. Et C. ultima voluntas, causa 13. quaest. 2. habentur haec verba: Ultima voluntas defuncti modis omnibus servari debet. Sed formalior est textus in leg. inutiliter, Cod. de fideicommiss. ubi cum Imperator dixisset in minus solemni testamento inutiliter fideicommissum relictum esse, quod videlicet ad illud exigendum in foro iudiciali actio non concedatur, subdit: Si haeredes comperta voluntate defuncti illud praestitissent, repeti deinde non posse. Rationem reddit Imperator, Quia non e sola scriptura, sed ex conscientia relicti fideicommissi voluntati defuncti satisfactum esse videatur. Confirmatur ex Iuristarum consensu dicentium, Testamentum minus solemne ita habere vim, ut legata in eo relicta non solum possint a legatario possidente in foro conscientiae possideri, sed eam in iudiciali defendi per legitimam exceptionem: Ita Bartol. ad leg. Nemo potest, ff. de legatis, et alii, ut patet ex Gamma decis. 347. et Claro §. Testamentum quaest. 90.
If they say that this text proceeds concerning legates, and fideicommissa, not concerning heirs.
Si dicant, hunc textum de legatis, et fideicommiss. procedere, non de haeredibus.
I say that it is commonly conceded concerning these also by Jurists and Theologians, as we have seen.
Dico et de his concedi communiter a Iuristis et Theologis, ut vidimus.
Hence I argue a fortiori from D. Bonav. Laws are to be kept from conscience the more gravely, the graver are the things commanded: But the laws yield to the last will in conscience, that last wills be fulfilled, interpreting the legacies, etc.; therefore much more as regards inheritances. For these are much graver, and it would be much more grave and hard for the testator to see the inheritance distraught, against his will, than a legacy. Therefore by the instinct of nature no one, even of timid conscience, will wish to restore the inheritance conferred on him by a testator, even if less solemnly.
Hinc arguo a fortiori ex D. Bonav. Leges sunt ex conscientia servandae eo gravius, quo graviores sunt res praeceptae: At leges voluntati ultimae deferunt in conscientia, ut ultimae voluntates impleantur, explicantes legata, etc. ergo multo magis quoad haereditates. Nam multo graviores sunt, multoque gravius, ac durius esset testatori videre distrahi haereditatem, se invito, quam legatum. Ideo ad naturae instinctum nullus etiam timoratae conscientiae haereditatem sibi delatam a testatore, etiamsi minus solemniter, restituere volet.
Therefore from the observance of the laws, enjoined on us in the forum of conscience according to the mind of the Legislators, it is brought out that the SS. Doctors are for the first opinion, not for the second, as Fagund. thinks num. 3. nay, that they agree with the third.
Igitur ex legum observantia, nobis in foro conscientiae iniuncta ad mentem Legislatorum educitur, SS. Doctores esse pro prima sententia, non pro secunda, ut putat Fagund. num. 3. imo cum tertia consentire.
From what has been said for the second assertion the response to the arguments of the first is clear: For laws are to be interpreted, and observed with great wisdom, discretion, and spirit; for so they are enjoined by God and the Apostles for the good of the Republic, for justice, and peace, and therefore the rectitude of nature is to be kept, as also justice, etc., as the S. Doct. de Eccles. Hierar. p. 2. cap. 3. discusses.
Ex dictis pro secundo asserto patet responsio ad argumenta primi: Leges enim sunt magna sapientia, discretione, et spiritu exponendae, et observandae; sic enim iniunguntur a Deo, et Apostolis ad bonum Reipubl. ad iustitiam, et pacem, atque ideo rectitudo naturae est servanda, sicut et iustitia, etc. ut disserit S. Doct. de Eccles. Hierar. p. 2. cap. 3.