Sulla disciplina del possesso in età dioclezianea

ABSTRACT: With the first part of a tripartite study regarding possession and real rights in Diocletian era, we give an overview of sources about possession regarding: distinctions, definitions, gain, keeping and loss of possession. In the com- plex we can see, along with ambiguities and doctrinal swings, some significant statemens given by imperial chancelors about some suggestions coming from para-classic jurisprudence. In the first place, there is a general information to be taken into account: the constant evolution of the notions of iusta possessio and possessio ad usucapionem, about whom it is important to look for a constant and unamovable definition along centuries. There is not a straight evolution (which reflects the controversialities on the matter), but moreover there is a constantly growing protection for the juridical position of the possessor who is absent for whatever reason (and even in the case in which the absence was the consequence of understandable reasons), and of the correlative juridical misrecognition of the occupation of empty unmovable goods (vacuae possessionis) which are not subsequent to the transaltional act or are not supported by the unmistakable consent of the owner.