Interdict unde vi a tenant on the new owner
Posted by Manuel Casal | Section Digest of Lawsuits
Presentation of case
The lessee of an estate which bears not admitted whom the owner had sold the predicted, having it put in possession, and then the tenant was thrown violently to a third party, and who have demanded the interdict unde vi (with violence).
Marcel: Digest 43, 16 of the prohibition of violence and gun violence, 12. (D. 43.16.12)
Answers
I said nothing that mattered lessee would have prevented the entrance to the proprietor who wanted to enter, or who had rejected the buyer, or the owner who had prepared to be handed over possession. So you escaurà the interdict unde vi to the tenant, and this will be bound by the injunction of the landlord, who understood that drove in not delivering the property to the buyer, except that he had done for just and reasonable cause.
Marcel: Digest 43, 16 of the prohibition of violence and gun violence, 12. (D. 43.16.12)
Having sold an estate which bears one that yielded in the lease stated that the buyer entered into the hollow possession, the tenant prevented him from entering, and the buyer subsequently expelled the tenant is asked about the injunctions unde vi. Determined that the lessee is required to interdict the seller, because no matter what this would have prevented the entrance to that or a third party, or sent to his will, then do not understand lost possession before would have been delivered to the buyer, because no one would intend to lose a buyer because the buyer that the property had not acquired, and also the buyer, who then used the force, is bound by the prohibition of the lessee, it was predicted that possessed by force, not by himself but by the seller, who would have taken possession. If he was asked to help the buyer if the seller will have later driven to the lessee. I said I had to be helped who had accepted an illegal mandate.
Papin: Digest 43, 16 of the prohibition of violence and gun violence, 18, pr. (D. 43.16.18.pr.)
To regain possession tends to a prohibition, if someone were forcibly expelled from the possession of a predicted or houses: the injunction is granted unde vi, which is released who forced him to restore the possession.
4 institutes, 15 of injunctions, 6 (I. 4.15.6)
Praetor says: "If someone hurts bad to prevent that is in possession of the goods who has my permission or who had jurisdiction, I will share because the value of what motivated the delivery of possession." The proposed this edict the praetor with great anticipation, then hand over the possession vain to make something, if not to protect those he had given possession and suppress those that prevent it.
Ulpiano: Digest 43, 4 of the injunction not to do violence to those who give possession, 1 pr. and 1 (d 43.4.1.pr. and 43.4.1.1)
Established that those against whom reindindica of whom could play the interdict unde vi, validly filed the injunction, although the trial is pending.
Papin: Digest 43, 16 of the prohibition of violence and gun violence, 18, 1 (D. 43.16.18.1)
Praetor says: "the plaintiff Restituiràs predicted where you have excluded yourself or your staff, and all that at that time he was in this place." "Only within a year, after a year, I will gain that was obtained by trial who drove with violence." This prohibition is proposed on the edict that has been driven by a predicted violence, so it was more just to help the expelled, which is proposed by this injunction to recover possession of the object.
Ulpiano: Digest 43, 16 and the prohibition of violence in armed violence, 1, and pr 1 (D. 43.16.1.pr. and 43.16.1.1)
It is understood that violence has been driven by those who had not materially, because he has been deprived of possession with intent retained.
Ulpiano: Digest 43, 16 and the prohibition of violence in armed violence, 1, 24 (D. 43.16.1.24)
Who was expelled by force, must recover all the damage that had suffered for expulsion.
Ulpiano: Digest 43, 16 and the prohibition of violence in armed violence, 1, 31 (D. 43.16.1.31)
It is considered that the violence done against someone who is wants to stop, and when done clandestinely despite controversy or believe you can have it.
Quint Mucio Escèvola: Digest 50, 17 Of the several old rules of law, 73, 2 (D. 50.17.73.2)
It will consider the results from day one was dismissed from office, although others will be counted since injunctions are sought, and not before.
Ulpiano: Digest 43, 16 and the prohibition of violence in armed violence, 1, 40 (D. 43.16.1.40)
It has always has been violently expelled who was in possession, but did not own.
Paule: Digest 43, 16 and the prohibition of violence in armed violence, 8 (D. 43.16.8)
Acts with violence, who does not let the owner to use his own discretion than either planting, digging, plowing, building something, or generally doing anything that remove the free possession to the opponent.
Pomponio: Digest 43, 16 of the prohibition of violence and gun violence, 11. (D. 43.16.11)
Established that those against whom reindindica of whom could play the interdict unde vi, validly filed the injunction, although the trial is pending.
Papin: Digest 43, 16 of the prohibition of violence and gun violence, 18, 1 (D. 43.16.18.1)
Nor can we agree not stand the fact interdict unde vi with violence, when necessary for public reason.
Paule: Digest 2, 14 pacts, 27, 4 (D. 2.14.27.4)
If for daily use and long quasipossessió, someone had purchased the right of aqueduct, has no need to explain the merits of what was right up this bondage, that is, if it was established by bequest or d another way, it has a useful action in order to prove that having used so many years, not possessed by violence or clandestinely or precarious.
Ulpiano: Digest 8, 5 In the vindication of slavery and the action negatòria, 10, pr. (D. 8.5.10.pr.)
Contrary to what was done with violence or clandestinely, you can not just defend with no exception.
Ulpiano: Digest 43, 24 of which you interdict the illegal or violent, "quod vi aut clam", 1, 3 (D. 43.24.1.3)
And so Celsus question: if you had thrown in a bad seed sown by others, with corresponding damage, the owner or farmer, if predicted to be leased, not only can the injunction by which to make violence or clandestinely, but also be sued because the action.
Ulpiano: Digest 9, 2 Comments on Law Aquila, 27, 14 (D. 9.2.27.14)
At the same time if you had taken the vacant possession of a property, and then would have prevented the entrance to the owner, you have not seen possessed with violence.
Paule: Digest 41, 3, and the usurpations usucapion, 4, 27 (D. 41.3.4.27)
Actions
In classical law as simple detentador lessee of the thing, and no owner could not use protection interdictal. The right granted to the lessee Postclassic the injunctions owners. The fact that fragments of these ans Digest, reproducing the classical jurists, made mention of this power is due to the interpolations introduced.
Actio empti, free action arising from consensual contract of sale with the buyer by claiming the thing sold, and the peaceful use and enjoyment of the thing sold. 19.1 Digest and Code 4, 49.
Actio conduct, action that stems from the lease, which protects the renter for the delivery of the object of leasing, as well as its use and enjoyment. Institute 3.24; Digest 19.2 and Code 4.65.10.
Interdictum unde vi, injunction granted when the keeper was violently expelled by the estate which bears a plaintiff. 43.16 Code and Digest 8.4.
Decisions Andorra
* Ruling 227 29/02/88 Mitra, in relation to the injunction to recover possession, which corresponds only to the owner when it turned violently expelled and had civilly or naturally, without being able to discuss the property.
* Ruling 402 TSJC 09/11/95, regarding the obligation to refund the possessor in bad faith, in order to restore economic balance of the legitimate holder of the private law that has been maliciously.
* TSJC Ruling dated 21/3/96, RJ 548, regarding the nature of the interdict unde vi to recover possession or to cancel the event or pertorbatori disturbing, because it was so just give it to whom was whether the possession was natural and civil, as the natural, also belongs to this prohibition.
* TSJC Ruling dated 18/9/97, RJ 794, in relation to the interdict unde vi that required for the viability of bringing in the year of the disturbing fact of possession.
* Aunt TSJC dated 10/4/97, RJ 856, about the impossibility of discussing property interdictals actions to recover possession, so natural and civil, on a path to continue the purposes of transit.
* TSJC Ruling dated 14/5/98, RJ 954, in relation to the interdict unde vi to regain possession, who is seen violently dispossessed, but not suitable to discuss the property itself.
* Judgment dated 19/11/98 TSJC, RJ 1001, in relation to the interdict unde vi to regain possession, which corresponds to who is violently dispossessed, whether as civil naturally possesses.
* TSJC Ruling dated 10/6/99, RJ 1154, in relation to the interdict posesorio strictly respect the interdict quod vi aut clam and the protection of property and any other real right.
We injunctions
