Use this link to cite:
http://hdl.handle.net/2183/7514 Aproximación al concepto de Fideicomiso tácito en el Derecho Romano
Loading...
Identifiers
Publication date
Authors
Tazón Cubillas, Aura
Advisors
Other responsabilities
Journal Title
Bibliographic citation
Anuario da Facultade de Dereito da Universidade da Coruña, 2009, 13: 831-861. ISSN: 1138-039X
Type of academic work
Academic degree
Abstract
[Resumen] Se pretende en este trabajo delimitar el concepto de fideicomiso tácito con que
operan los juristas clásicos aclarando los términos y el alcance de la diferencia que se
observa entre la posición de Juliano-Calístrato (D.30.130 y D.49.14.3pr.) y la de
Marcelo-Paulo (D.30.123.1 y D.49.14.40pr.). La hipótesis de la que se parte es doble:
por una parte, que el concepto jurisprudencial de fideicomiso tácito es unívoco, sobre-
entendido en las fuentes y distinto de las nociones de fraude y fideicomiso secreto; por
otra, que los juristas mencionados difieren exclusivamente en el tratamiento procesal
del dolo del fiduciario.
[Abstract] The purpose of this paper is to set the limits of the concept tacitum fideicommis- sum as operated by the classical jurists, clarifying the terms and the range of difference which can be observed between Iulianus-Calistratus’ position (D.30.130 and D.49.14.3pr.) and Marcellus-Paulus’ position (D.30.123.1 and D.49.14.40pr.). The hypothesis from which we depart is a double one: on one hand, it states that jurispru- dential concept of tacitum fideicommissum is univocal, inferred from the sources and different from the notions of fraud and secret trust; on the other hand, it explains that the abovementioned jurists only differ in the procedural treatment of the fiduciary’s deceit.
[Abstract] The purpose of this paper is to set the limits of the concept tacitum fideicommis- sum as operated by the classical jurists, clarifying the terms and the range of difference which can be observed between Iulianus-Calistratus’ position (D.30.130 and D.49.14.3pr.) and Marcellus-Paulus’ position (D.30.123.1 and D.49.14.40pr.). The hypothesis from which we depart is a double one: on one hand, it states that jurispru- dential concept of tacitum fideicommissum is univocal, inferred from the sources and different from the notions of fraud and secret trust; on the other hand, it explains that the abovementioned jurists only differ in the procedural treatment of the fiduciary’s deceit.