The owner of the dominant property had a vindicatio servitutis (it is possible that this also appears called actio confessoria in the writings belonging to the post-classical era) that he could exercise against the owner or the possessor of the servient property, or against any other person who did not allow the exercise of the servitude to be carried out. The vindicatio servitutis, which was characterized by its similarity to the vindictive action, contained an arbitrary clause that made absolution easier in exchange for a guarantee not to continue disturbing (de non amplius turbando). This same bond was required by the praetor from the person who did not defend himself against the vindicatio servitutis with the intention that the use of the easement would not be prevented while the negative action was not exercised and the easement was declared non-existent. At the same time, whoever did not accept the negative action, a bond was required not to exercise the denied servitude until a favorable sentence was handed down. In other situations, the use of easements could be defended by means of special interdicts. Although, the interdict uti possidetis was not applicable, as the easement consisted of a use and not a possession.[7][8]​.

Against works that began on the neighboring property and that violated the integrity of an easement right, the owner of the dominant property had a restitutionary interdict, which had as its objective the destruction of what had been done, as long as the work was not finished. In order to exercise this interdict, the plaintiff must have previously made a complaint to the builder of the new work (novi operis nuntiatio). When the complaint was accepted by the magistrate, he himself required the defendant to provide security to compensate in the event that he was defeated in the vindicatio servitutis that the complainant would exercise. If this bond was not granted, what was appropriate was the interdict, so the magistrate went on to defend the complainant who prevented the work from continuing against the interdict uti possidetis of the builder. However, if the bond was given, the magistrate dispensed with the complaint (nuntiatio remissa) and the result of the real action was awaited.[9]​.

The most frequent way of constituting an easement was in iure cessio in a vindicatio servitutis initiated by the owner of the future dominant property against the owner of the future servient property; It was also common for it to be constituted through a vindicatory legacy&action=edit&redlink=1 "Legacy (Roman Law) (not yet written)") or judicial adjudication. With respect to the old easements of passage and water conduction over Italic estates, it is worth mentioning that these could be acquired by mancipation, since they were considered res mancipi like the estates between which they were established. Easements could be usucapped until the so-called Scribonia law appeared (issued in the century BC, it suppressed the possibility of usucapping easements in order to prevent them from being consolidated due to negligence or absence of the owners). However, usucapion was maintained in those cases of recovery of an easement extinguished due to disuse. Meanwhile, in provincial estates, easements were frequently established through written agreements accompanied by a stipulatio, generally penal (pactiones et stipulationes).[10]​[11]​[12]​[13]​.

The constitution of easements could occur in a direct or indirect way. That is to say, the constitution of the same by means of the reservation of the same in an act of alienation "Alienation (Right)") of the property was also permissible, whether in an act of disposition inter vivos or mortis causa.[14]​[15]​.

There were several cases that led to the extinction of the established easements: firstly, when the two properties (servant and dominant) became completely owned by the same owner, the easement disappeared by virtue of a principle that said that there could not be an easement over one's own property. In summary, its extinction occurred due to confusion "Confusion (Law)").[16]​.

Secondly, the easement was extinguished upon a resignation of the owner, through the use of an in iure cessio in a negative action. It also disappeared due to disuse or lack of prohibition regarding acts contrary to a negative action, during a two-year period (with Justinian I the term was increased to ten years, as was the longi temporis praescriptio). Finally, the easement was extinguished due to loss of usefulness of the service as a result of a change in the property, permanent flooding, and in general, any other phenomenon that led to its uselessness (in some cases, as happened when the channel of a river withdrew from a property that it had been occupying permanently or when the confusion of ownership disappeared, the easements could be reestablished).[17]

• - Portal:Law. Content related to Law.

• - Co-ownership.

• - Tradition.

• - Usufruct.

• - Easements in the current Spanish Civil Code.

• - Digitized version of the easements in the Siete Partidas of Alfonso X the Wise.

The owner of the dominant property had a vindicatio servitutis (it is possible that this also appears called actio confessoria in the writings belonging to the post-classical era) that he could exercise against the owner or the possessor of the servient property, or against any other person who did not allow the exercise of the servitude to be carried out. The vindicatio servitutis, which was characterized by its similarity to the vindictive action, contained an arbitrary clause that made absolution easier in exchange for a guarantee not to continue disturbing (de non amplius turbando). This same bond was required by the praetor from the person who did not defend himself against the vindicatio servitutis with the intention that the use of the easement would not be prevented while the negative action was not exercised and the easement was declared non-existent. At the same time, whoever did not accept the negative action, a bond was required not to exercise the denied servitude until a favorable sentence was handed down. In other situations, the use of easements could be defended by means of special interdicts. Although, the interdict uti possidetis was not applicable, as the easement consisted of a use and not a possession.[7][8]​.

Against works that began on the neighboring property and that violated the integrity of an easement right, the owner of the dominant property had a restitutionary interdict, which had as its objective the destruction of what had been done, as long as the work was not finished. In order to exercise this interdict, the plaintiff must have previously made a complaint to the builder of the new work (novi operis nuntiatio). When the complaint was accepted by the magistrate, he himself required the defendant to provide security to compensate in the event that he was defeated in the vindicatio servitutis that the complainant would exercise. If this bond was not granted, what was appropriate was the interdict, so the magistrate went on to defend the complainant who prevented the work from continuing against the interdict uti possidetis of the builder. However, if the bond was given, the magistrate dispensed with the complaint (nuntiatio remissa) and the result of the real action was awaited.[9]​.

The most frequent way of constituting an easement was in iure cessio in a vindicatio servitutis initiated by the owner of the future dominant property against the owner of the future servient property; It was also common for it to be constituted through a vindicatory legacy&action=edit&redlink=1 "Legacy (Roman Law) (not yet written)") or judicial adjudication. With respect to the old easements of passage and water conduction over Italic estates, it is worth mentioning that these could be acquired by mancipation, since they were considered res mancipi like the estates between which they were established. Easements could be usucapped until the so-called Scribonia law appeared (issued in the century BC, it suppressed the possibility of usucapping easements in order to prevent them from being consolidated due to negligence or absence of the owners). However, usucapion was maintained in those cases of recovery of an easement extinguished due to disuse. Meanwhile, in provincial estates, easements were frequently established through written agreements accompanied by a stipulatio, generally penal (pactiones et stipulationes).[10]​[11]​[12]​[13]​.

The constitution of easements could occur in a direct or indirect way. That is to say, the constitution of the same by means of the reservation of the same in an act of alienation "Alienation (Right)") of the property was also permissible, whether in an act of disposition inter vivos or mortis causa.[14]​[15]​.

There were several cases that led to the extinction of the established easements: firstly, when the two properties (servant and dominant) became completely owned by the same owner, the easement disappeared by virtue of a principle that said that there could not be an easement over one's own property. In summary, its extinction occurred due to confusion "Confusion (Law)").[16]​.

Secondly, the easement was extinguished upon a resignation of the owner, through the use of an in iure cessio in a negative action. It also disappeared due to disuse or lack of prohibition regarding acts contrary to a negative action, during a two-year period (with Justinian I the term was increased to ten years, as was the longi temporis praescriptio). Finally, the easement was extinguished due to loss of usefulness of the service as a result of a change in the property, permanent flooding, and in general, any other phenomenon that led to its uselessness (in some cases, as happened when the channel of a river withdrew from a property that it had been occupying permanently or when the confusion of ownership disappeared, the easements could be reestablished).[17]

• - Portal:Law. Content related to Law.

• - Co-ownership.

• - Tradition.

• - Usufruct.

• - Easements in the current Spanish Civil Code.

• - Digitized version of the easements in the Siete Partidas of Alfonso X the Wise.