Interdictal protection of possession

Thanks to the interdictal protection provided by the praetor, a possessor could assert or recover possession. Such possession, to be protrected by praetorian interdict, must not have been obtained by force (vi) or “viciously” (possessio vitiosa), clandestinely (clam), or by bailment at will (precarium) from the dispossessor.

Because “ownership has nothing in common with possession” (Ulpian, D. 41.2.12.1), interdictal protection could be used even against owners who had lost possession justly but then recovered it unjustly. On the other hand, the fact of owning did not exclude the owner from interdictal protection when he had been dispossessed. Thus, suppose the owner Titius had been dis­possessed by Caius. Titius could bring a rei vindicatio to recover property, but it would also be possible for him simply to bring an interdict to recover posses­sion, which would also allow him to avoid the inconvenience of having to prove ownership. Then, if he was unable to recover possession with the interdict, he could initiate the vindication procedure.

Interdictal proceedings were simple and rapid since they only required examination of the position of each litigant in relation to the other. The praetor would end by ordering maintenance or recovery of possession for the litigant who had the superior claim to possess. For cases concerning immovable property, the praetor would assign possession to the litigant who already had it, unless he had obtained it by force, clandestinely, or by bail­ment at will. For cases concerning movable property, the praetor would grant possession to the litigant who had the thing for the longer period

Property law 149 during the preceding year. Book 43 of the Digest sums up the interdicts as elaborated by Justinian.