Legal Definitions - bonorum possessio contra tabulas

In Roman law, bonorum possessio contra tabulas refers to a legal order issued by a magistrate (specifically, the Praetor) that allowed an individual to take possession of an estate, even if doing so went against the explicit terms of a deceased person's will.

This concept arose because Roman civil law had strict rules about the validity of wills, but the Praetor's jurisdiction allowed for remedies based on fairness and equity. The Praetor could not technically invalidate a will under civil law or declare someone a legal heir (a heres), but could grant practical possession of the estate. This effectively bypassed the will's provisions to ensure that certain close family members, particularly children, were not unfairly disinherited or overlooked without proper justification.

The impact of such an order varied:

• If a testator omitted a daughter or an emancipated son (a son no longer under the father's legal authority, known as patria potestas) without explicitly disinheriting them, the Praetor might grant the omitted individual bonorum possessio contra tabulas. In these cases, the legacies (gifts) specified in the will for others generally remained valid, but the applicant would receive their share of the estate.
• However, if a testator omitted a son who was still under their patria potestas without expressly disinheriting him, the omission was considered so serious that the entire will could be invalidated, leading to intestacy (meaning the estate would be distributed as if no will existed, according to legal default rules).

Here are some examples illustrating this concept:

• Example 1 (Omitted Daughter): A wealthy Roman citizen, Lucius, drafts a will leaving his entire estate to his brother, Marcus. Lucius has an adult daughter, Cornelia, who is not mentioned anywhere in the will, neither as an heir nor as being disinherited. Cornelia, feeling unjustly overlooked, petitions the Praetor. The Praetor, recognizing that a daughter was omitted without explicit disinheritance, grants Cornelia bonorum possessio contra tabulas. This order allows Cornelia to take possession of her rightful share of Lucius's estate, even though the will stated that everything should go to Marcus. The will itself isn't completely voided, but Cornelia's claim takes precedence for her portion.
• Example 2 (Omitted Emancipated Son): Gaius, a Roman father, had previously emancipated his son, Quintus, meaning Quintus was no longer under Gaius's legal authority (patria potestas). Later, Gaius writes a will leaving his property to a charitable foundation, but he completely forgets to mention Quintus, neither including him nor explicitly disinheriting him. After Gaius's death, Quintus learns of the will and petitions the Praetor. The Praetor, seeing that an emancipated son was omitted without proper disinheritance, issues an order of bonorum possessio contra tabulas. This allows Quintus to claim possession of his portion of the inheritance, overriding the will's exclusive gift to the foundation for that part.
• Example 3 (Omitted Son Under Patria Potestas): A Roman father, Decimus, has a son, Flavius, who is still legally under Decimus's patria potestas (his father's legal power). Decimus drafts a will leaving all his assets to his wife and explicitly omits Flavius, but without providing any specific, legally recognized reason for disinheritance. Flavius, upon learning of the will, petitions the Praetor. Because Flavius was a son still under his father's legal power and was omitted without proper disinheritance, the Praetor declares the entire will invalid. This leads to intestacy, meaning Decimus's estate is distributed according to the standard legal rules for someone who died without a valid will, and Flavius, as the direct heir, inherits the estate.