[Decisiones rotae Romanae]

possession is proven, as the law Si quis vi, section Differentiam, Digest, on acquiring possession, and when the permutation has followed at the time of resignation, sometimes the whole right is seen to have passed, as is said in the similar [case], Digest, on the mandate, law 51, joined with the law Si cum optione, on the work of the builder. This, namely, says Innocent in the chapter Inter cetera, on prebends, in the beginning, where he says that possession does not pass under a condition made, if the condition follows, section Si modus sequatur, and if the permutation follows, possession is seen to have passed from the time of the resignation. Item, this resigner cannot be said to possess civilly after the resignation, since he is not the owner of the benefice, nor as if possessing in his own right, which is civil possession, nor can he be said to possess naturally, since he is not as a usufructuary or as one having a right in the thing, which is to possess naturally, law 1, section Deici, Digest, on violence and violent men, and because he resigned his right, he is seen to lose the possession which was joined with the civil [possession], since he lost the civil, which in doubt is seen to have deduced the whole right, as the law An eadem, section, Digest, on exceptions of the adjudged thing, wherefore it is seen from these that such a resigner by reason of the permutation is seen to lose all manner of possession, as if he is expelled, the interdict of restitution will not be wanting to him, and this if the permutation follows, because if the permutation does not follow, the possession is seen to be resolved by the law itself into the resigner himself by reason of the permutation, as is said in the similar [case] in the law 1, section, with what is noted there, on those things which are ejected, to which makes noted by the Archdeacon in the chapter Si beneficia, on the word Revertuntur, on patents, book 6. And see the said decision 101, 294, 399.

On renunciation and the restitution of the despoiled. 68.

Note that although after spoliation a renunciation over a benefice is not valid, as in the chapter Sollicite, on the restitution of the despoiled, it is good, namely, if the petition of restitution is renounced by pact, as noted in the chapter Super fundum, on the word Renunciatum, on renunciation, by Innocent, to which makes the law Si quis rationes, on the legal laws, joined with the law Unus, section Illud and section Pacta, Digest, on pacts, see the said decisions 428 and 216.

On the cause of possession and ownership. 69.

Note that in a case of appeal, the petitory action claim of ownership can be suspended, although in the principal case it cannot after conclusion, as in the chapter 1, on the cause of possession, in the Clementines, because a case of appeal is seen to be a different cause from the principal, as the law Cum appellatur, Digest, on judicial solutions, which understand that in the principal case, until the conclusion, the petitory action can be suspended, as noted in the chapter Pastoralis, on the word Petente, by Innocent, on the cause of possession, unless it is proven that the defendant has right in the property, because then if it were certain of the right of the thing, it cannot be suspended by the actor's petitory action, as is evident there.

On the adjudged thing. 70.

Note that where the defendant stands on the non-right of the actor, the defendant is not to be removed from the possession of the benefice, which holds, put the case that the defendant may not have the right, as noted by Apost. in the chapter Mandatum, on the adjudged thing, and Innocent in the chapter Ex insinuacione, on proctors, to which makes the law Si, Code, on the selling of a thing, and what is noted by Innocent in the chapter Cum frater, on the restitution of the despoiled, in the gloss on the word Fatemur, better in the chapter Cum Bertoldus, the gloss Mirum, after purification, or you may, on the adjudged thing, yet the text is seen in the chapter Olim, on the adjudged thing, at the end, to which the law 1, Digest, onuti possidetis. Indeed, according to some, such possession could give objections against one who does not have the right, because it is just that one be in possession until it is certain of the right of the actor, especially if from the beginning he had colored possession, argued and noted by the Archdeacon in the chapter Licet, on prebends, book 6, to which makes the law Loci corpus, Digest, on the selling of slaves, law Paulus, section Si, on the modes of pledge or hypothec, and it is the text extra, on the restitution, Significavit. See entirely the said decision 419 and 415 and following.