# The custom of the land: how a claim to land was proved before the cadastre
> Before the cadastre and the land register, a boundary was proved by oath-helpers, by the testimony of locals who knew where the line ran and, sometimes, by a curse read in church. This page gathers the documented rules, three real cases between 1562 and 1814 and an overview of Câmpulung. The best documented is the Vrancea freeholders' lawsuit against Treasurer Ruset, closed in December 1814 by a charter that confirmed their estates.
Author: Marius Comper • https://mariuscomper.uk/obiceiul-pamantului/en/ • Date: 2026-10-02

## 1. Numbers from the archives
- **12**: Oath-helpers a claimant usually brought. Cases judged by the prince, in Moldavia and Wallachia: the claimant got a deadline to produce them.
- **24**: Oath-helpers usually at a «law over law» retrial. The other side's counter-proof, at double the number; the prince could approve fewer.
- **10 years**: Redemption period under pre-emption. Settled, on the Byzantine model, for a sale made without first offering the land to kin and neighbours.
- **11 years**: The Vrancea freeholders' trial against Treasurer Ruset. From 1803 to the charter of December 1814.

## 2. How was it decided who was right about a piece of land, with no cadastre and no land register?
1. **Land was won with 12 oath-helpers**: In cases judged by the prince, in Moldavia and Wallachia, the claimant usually got a deadline to bring 12 boyars who would swear alongside him. If they failed to come or to swear, he lost. The other side could demand a retrial, «law over law», usually with 24 oath-helpers. The court sat with the Gospel on the table.
2. **The second proof was within reach of boyars and monasteries**: A retrial usually required double the number of oath-helpers, so in practice it was within reach of boyars and monasteries. The prince could refuse it: in 1575, in a case between the noblewoman Anca and several families of Lipov, he pronounced a curse «so that law over law shall not be».
3. **Locals knew the boundary, and a curse aimed to deter false testimony**: When two estates disputed a boundary, the princely council sent surveyors to the spot, and they asked people from the surrounding villages where the line ran. In the spring of 1772 the abbot of Voroneț feared that locals would lie in favour of a landowner, and asked the metropolitan for a letter of curse against anyone who swore falsely. The letter was issued on 3 April 1772.
4. **Kin land did not leave the kin easily**: Anyone selling kin land to an outsider had to offer it first to relatives, co-holders and neighbours, who usually had 30 days to take it at the offered price. If the sale went ahead without them, they could redeem the land from the buyer for the price he had paid. The redemption period settled at 10 years. The right, called protimisis, left the law in 1840 in Wallachia and in 1865 in Moldavia.
5. **A killing on the village boundary became the village's problem**: If a murdered man was found on a village's land, the village had to find the killer, try him before the «good and old men», and hand him to the state. If it did not, the village paid: compensation to the victim's family and a fine to the state. This was the dușegubină. A killer who was caught risked death, and the compensation came on top of the penalty.
6. **A commons won before the Divan, though a prince had granted its land to someone else**: In January 1801 Prince Constantin Ipsilanti granted the whole district of Vrancea to Treasurer Iordache Ruset. The Vrancea freeholders went to court in 1803. The Divan of Iași recognised their right on 1 March 1813, and a charter of December 1814 confirmed the decision.

## 3. Which rules stood in for documents in a land case?
- **Oath-helpers and «law over law»**: Proof was the oath of a group of people. Source: I. F. Moldovan, «Jurătorii la români», Studia UBB Iurisprudentia 2/2012, pp. 198–219.
- **Boundary surveys: the line told by locals**: A boundary was settled partly by people's testimony. Source: A. Popa, «O carte de blestem de la 1772», Analele Bucovinei XXI/1, 2014, pp. 261–262; Moldovan 2012.
- **The letter of curse**: Fear of a curse stood in for a guard at an oath. Source: Popa 2014 (National Archives, Suceava branch, Documents collection, fund 35, bundle IV, doc. 93, f. 1); Moldovan 2012, note 73.
- **Protimisis: relatives and neighbours first**: Kin land offered to the kin first. Source: V. Georgescu, O. Sachelarie, V. Stoicescu, «Protimisis», in Instituții feudale din Țările Române, pp. 390–392, as cited in Dreptul de preempțiune (Hamangiu); M. Bolca, thesis summary, Cluj, 2010; Câmpulung local-history overview, dragusanul.ro.
- **Dușegubină: the village's liability**: A village answered for a corpse found on its boundary. Source: Dicționar juridic (DEX), «Duşegubina», legeaz.net.
- **Sâmbra oilor: measuring the milk**: A custom of the Oaș Land, described in a 2014 article. Source: C. Cicau, «Sâmbra oilor, una dintre cele mai vechi tradiții locale», Adevărul, 27 Apr 2014.

## 4. Imagined cases
Four invented cases built on the documented rules above. Names, places and events are imaginary; the rules applied come from the sources.
- *A boundary disputed between two villages* (Imagined case): The village of Rădești claims its boundary with Vâlcești follows the stream. The people of Vâlcești say it runs along the ridge, a fathom higher. There is no deed.
  - The claimant offers to swear with 12 oath-helpers: Under the documented rule, the prince gives the claimant a deadline to bring 12 boyars to swear with him. If they come and swear, he wins. If they do not come or do not swear, he loses.
  - The defendant demands «law over law»: After the claimant wins with 12 oath-helpers, the defendant can ask for a new trial with 24. A village of poor peasants could not easily find 24 men of standing, so the retrial was a weapon of boyars. The prince could also refuse: in 1575, in a real case, he barred it with a curse.
  - The council sends surveyors: The surveyors go to the spot and ask people from the surrounding villages where the boundary has run since time out of mind. As at Voroneț in 1772, a party fearing false witnesses could ask the metropolitan for a letter of curse against anyone who swore falsely.
- *A sale to an outsider* (Imagined case): Gheorghe, in arrears on his taxes, sells a hay meadow to a town merchant without offering it to anyone in his kin.
  - The cousins redeem the plot from the merchant: Under the documented rule, kin, co-holders or neighbours with a right of protimisis who had not been asked could redeem from the buyer, paying the price the buyer had paid. The period settled at 10 years. The merchant gets his money back and loses the plot.
  - Gheorghe first makes them an offer: Had Gheorghe asked them first, relatives, co-holders and neighbours would usually have had 30 days to decide whether to pay the merchant's offered price. If the entitled refused the offer or did not use their right in time, the sale could go ahead.
- *A man killed on the village boundary* (Imagined case): In the morning a murdered man is found on a villager's hay meadow in Podeni. Nobody knows who did it.
  - The village finds the killer and hands him over: Under the documented rule, the village investigates, tries the killer before the good and old men, and sends him bound to the state's officers. The village is no longer liable. The killer risked death, and compensation to the family came on top.
  - The village cannot find him or will not hand him over: If the village does not hand over the killer, it answers as if it were the culprit: compensation to the victim's family and a fine to the state. This was the dușegubină. Constantin Mavrocordat renewed the rule in 1741–1742.
- *A grant that takes your estate* (Imagined case, based on a real one): A prince grants a boyar, by charter, the whole district where freeholders live. The villages say the estates have been theirs since memory.
  - The freeholders assemble and choose representatives: In Vrancea, in August 1813, the Great Assembly at Vidra chose agents and raised 10,000 lei for the lawsuit. An 11-year trial, between 1803 and 1814, ended in a charter that recognised their estates.
  - The freeholders ask for their estates to be confirmed by a charter: This is how the Vrancea trial ended: after the Divan's decision of 1 March 1813, a charter of December 1814 confirmed the freeholders' estates.

## 5. What happened to the rules of custom once the law began to be written?
- **1493–1511**: Tismana monastery's case over the Bahna settlement: one trial with 12 oath-helpers, another with 24, then in 1511 again with 12. (Moldovan 2012, note 72, citing DIR)
- **1562**: Tismana's case against Roșca and the sons of Răsipă: after trials with 12 and 24 oath-helpers, Prince Petru rules for the monastery. (Moldovan 2012, pp. 207–208; DRH B, vol. V, doc. 239)
- **1575**: In a case of 1575, a prince bars a retrial («law over law») with a curse. (Moldovan 2012, note 73; DIR 16th c., B, vol. IV, p. 198)
- **1741–1742**: Constantin Mavrocordat renews village liability for dușegubină in both principalities. (Dicționar juridic (DEX), «Duşegubina»)
- **1752**: Matei Ghica abolishes dușegubină as «an evil and ugly custom». (Dicționar juridic (DEX), «Duşegubina»)
- **1780**: The Pravilniceasca condică, drawn up in 1775, takes effect in Wallachia. It stayed in force until 1 September 1818, when the Caragea Code replaced it. (Pravilniceasca condică, Wikipedia (ro))
- **1801–1814**: Grant of Vrancea (January 1801), confirmed in 1803. The Divan of Iași issues its decision on 1 March 1813, and the charter of December 1814 confirms it. (Chirilă 2021; Gaiță and Gaiță 2009, p. 79)
- **1840 and 1865**: Protimisis leaves the law: in 1840 in Wallachia and in 1865 in Moldavia. (Dreptul de preempțiune (Hamangiu), citing Georgescu et al.)
- **1864**: Civil Code, art. 728: no one can be obliged to remain in joint ownership. A co-heir can always demand partition, and an agreement to suspend it can only run five years, renewable. (Civil Code of 1864, art. 728)
- **1910**: The Forest Code obliges the Vrancea communities to give themselves an official form. Stahl showed the legislator had not understood the joint property of village communities. (Roșculeț 2011, pp. 148–149; Adevărul Focșani)
- **After 1948**: The communities are nationalised and their assets pass to the state. Their activity resumed after 1990. (Adevărul, «De ce au fost considerate obștile sătești…»)

## 6. Do the Vrancea communities resemble those described by Elinor Ostrom?
- **Principle 1, Clearly defined boundaries of the resource and its members**: The December 1814 charter recognises the freeholders' estates in the Vrancea district «in all their boundaries». The quoted text does not show where the boundaries run or who exactly belongs to the community, so the parallel stays partial.
- **Principle 3, Those affected by the rules take part in making them**: The Great Assembly at Vidra, meeting on 10 August 1813, chose agents and raised 10,000 lei for the trial: the community decided together. The fact does not show how forest-use rules were made, so the parallel concerns only organising for the trial.
- **Principle 7, External authorities recognise the right to organise**: The Divan of Iași recognised the Vrancea freeholders' case on 1 March 1813, and Prince Scarlat Calimah confirmed the decision in December 1814, «by the power of the ancient law of the land and of the pravile». The decision concerns property; it says nothing about the community's right to make its own rules.

## 7. Which real cases show custom at work (1562–1814)?
- *Vrancea against Treasurer Ruset (1801–1814)*: In January 1801 Prince Constantin Ipsilanti granted Treasurer Iordache Ruset, nicknamed Rosnovanul, the whole district of Vrancea, on the ground that it had remained, «from time out of mind, rightful princely estate, granted to no one». According to Chirilă, the villages had been given in the 14th and 15th centuries to warriors, and their descendants became the Vrancea freeholders. Alexandru Moruzzi confirmed Ipsilanti's charter in 1803. In the summer of 1803 the Vrancea villagers, urged on by the priest Șerban Bălan of Năruja, began the «Great Trial». On 1 March 1813 the Divan of Iași, under Scarlat Calimah, issued a decision recognising the Vrancea villagers' case. A charter of December 1814 confirmed it: «all the estates of the Vrancea district were from ancient times rightful inheritances of the freeholders, not princely estates». On 10 August 1813 the Great Assembly at Vidra had chosen agents and raised 10,000 lei for the cost of the trial. (Source: T.-T. Chirilă, Ziarul de Vrancea, 2021, who cites National Archives, Bucharest, CCXL/15 for the arrangement between Ipsilanti and Ruset; Gaiță and Gaiță, Analele Buzăului I, 2009, p. 79)
- *Tismana monastery and its oath-helpers, 1562 (1562)*: On 9 January 1562 Prince Petru tried a case between Tismana monastery and Roșca, together with the sons of Răsipă, over the villages of Bahna, Ploștina, Leurda, Cireșelul, Turcinești and Grozești. The prince found that the same case had been tried under earlier princes: once the monks had won by swearing with 12 boyars, then the other side took «law over law» with 24 oath-helpers but failed to bring them by the deadline and lost. At another trial, with 12 oath-helpers, the monks in turn asked for «law over law» with 24 and won again. Prince Petru ruled for the monastery without a new trial and confirmed its villages. (Source: DRH, B, Wallachia, vol. V, Bucharest, 1983, doc. 239, pp. 260–262; Moldovan 2012)
- *The letter of curse of 1772 for a boundary (1772)*: In the spring of 1772 Abbot Macarie of Voroneț monastery complained that the steward Vasile Balș, owner of the Stupea estate, had encroached on the boundary of the monastery's Drăgoiești estate. The princely council sent surveyors. The abbot feared that residents who knew the old boundary would not tell the truth, and asked Metropolitan Gavril for a letter of curse. The metropolitan issued the letter on 3 April 1772. The document does not say how the survey ended. (Source: National Archives, Suceava branch, Documents collection, fund 35, bundle IV, doc. 93, f. 1; ed. A. Popa, Analele Bucovinei XXI/1, 2014, pp. 261–262)
- *Câmpulung Moldovenesc: the commons and its 12 elders (1708–1790)*: Dimitrie Cantemir called Câmpulung the «republic of Câmpulung». The community had its own court, the council of 12 elders, which judged by the Wallachian law. Its privileges were reconfirmed on 16 January 1708 by Mihai Racoviță and then in 1737, 1747 and 1767. The villagers had boundary suits with monasteries: with Voroneț on 11 January 1723 over the Stulpicani pastures, with Homor on 21 May 1737 and with Putna on 2 June 1742. The overview does not say how the boundary suits ended. For pre-emption it keeps a case of 30 May 1790: Solomon Floce won the Valea Seacă case because Gheorghe Dodul's estate had been redeemed by «the nearest kin», Ion son of Istrate Floce. (Source: Local-history overview, dragusanul.ro (the passages used here carry no archive references; the documents were not checked here))

## 8. What is documented and what remains hypothesis?
- **As a rule there were 12 oath-helpers, and at a retrial usually 24, with variations. The Tismana cases Moldovan cites do not support a fixed ladder of 6, 12, 24, 48.** Supports: The Tismana trials of 1493 and 1511 had 12 or 24 oath-helpers each time, not the 48 that Tocilescu's theory would have predicted. Other regions differ: in Transylvania, six noble co-swearers in the robbery case mentioned above. Doubt: The numbers varied by country, period and the parties' rank. A case with more oath-helpers in another document cannot be excluded from the sources cited.
- **A retrial with double the oath-helpers favoured those with rank and wealth.** Supports: Moldovan shows the second proof required a doubled number of trusted men and that the practice belonged to boyars and monasteries. The prince could bar it, as in 1575. Doubt: The peasants' protection depended on the prince's decision in each case. How often the poor won cannot be read from the sources cited.
- **Rules of custom were abrogated one by one, and the law regulated how the communities were organised.** Supports: Dușegubină was abolished in 1752, protimisis disappeared in 1840 in Wallachia and in 1865 in Moldavia, and the 1864 Civil Code has art. 728 on partition. The 1910 Forest Code required the Vrancea communities to take an official form. Doubt: Some forms of protimisis stayed in villages that kept the custom. The communities lasted until 1948, so written law did not end them alone.
- **The Vrancea freeholders won through a trial they organised and paid for together.** Supports: The trial lasted 11 years, from 1803 to 1814. The Great Assembly chose agents and raised 10,000 lei, and the Divan recognised their case on 1 March 1813. Doubt: One won case does not show that all communities won. From the sources cited we cannot count the ones that lost.
- **Charcoal buried under boundary stones, children beaten at the boundary to remember it, an oath with turf on the head: practices for which the sources cited here offer no evidence.** Supports: We did not find them in the studies and documents cited here, and the cited authors do not mention them. So we do not assert them. Doubt: They may appear in ethnographic collections or documents these sources do not cover. Their absence here does not prove they never existed.

## 9. Where did custom lose?
- **A retrial was hard for the poor to reach**: A retrial usually required double the number of oath-helpers. The practice was within reach of boyars and monasteries, and a village of peasants could not easily use it.
- **A written deed could take an estate**: The charter of January 1801 gave the whole Vrancea district to a boyar. The villagers needed ten years of litigation, from 1803 to 1813, to win the decision, and another charter, in December 1814, to have their estates confirmed.
- **Written law abrogated rules one by one**: Dușegubină was abolished in 1752, protimisis in 1840 and 1865, and the 1910 Forest Code did not understand the communities' joint property, according to Stahl. After 1948 the communities were nationalised.

## Sources
- Iosif Florin Moldovan, «Jurătorii la români: desfășurarea proceselor cu jurători. Procedura de judecată», Studia UBB Iurisprudentia 2/2012, pp. 198–219. https://arhiva-studia.law.ubbcluj.ro/articol/502
- Anghel Popa, «O carte de blestem de la 1772», Analele Bucovinei XXI/1, 2014, pp. 261–262 (document din Arhivele Naționale Suceava, fond 35, pachet IV, doc. 93). https://www.diacronia.ro/indexing/details/A32890
- Titel-Toader Chirilă, «Răsmerița și procesul cel mare al vrâncenilor», Ziarul de Vrancea, 10 ianuarie 2021 (care citează, pentru înțelegerea dintre Ipsilanti și Ruset, Arhivele Naționale București, CCXL/15). https://www.ziaruldevrancea.ro/proiecte/pe-urmele-istoriei/rasmerita-si-procesul-cel-mare-al-vrancenilor
- Andrei Gaiță, Alexandru Gaiță, «Verneștenii și procesele lor din vremuri apuse», Analele Buzăului I, 2009, p. 79 (cu trimitere la C. Constantinescu-Mircești, I. Dragomirescu, «Marele proces al Vrancei», SAI VII, 1965, pp. 163–165). https://muzeubuzau.ro/wp-content/uploads/analele_buzaului/01-analele-buzaului-buletin-muzeul-judetean-buzau-I-2009.pdf
- Dicționar juridic (DEX), articolul «Duşegubina». https://legeaz.net/dictionar-juridic/dusegubina
- Dreptul de preempțiune, Ed. Hamangiu (extras), cu trimitere la V. Georgescu, O. Sachelarie, V. Stoicescu, «Protimisis», în Instituții feudale din Țările Române, pp. 390–392; M. Bolca, rezumatul tezei Istoria proprietății în trecutul românesc, Cluj, 2010. https://www.hamangiu.ro/upload/cuprins_extras/dreptul-de-preemptiune_extras.pdf
- Gheorghe Roșculeț, «The Forest Code of 1910 applied to the forests belonging to the compossessorates and the rural communities», Buletinul Universității Transilvania din Brașov, seria VII, 4(53)/2, 2011. https://webbut.unitbv.ro/index.php/Series_VII/article/download/6428/4950/12550
- Povestea așezărilor bucovinene revăzută: Câmpulung Moldovenesc, dragusanul.ro (sinteză de istorie locală). https://dragusanul.ro/povestea-asezarilor-bucovinene-revazuta-campulung-moldovenesc/
- Cristina Cicau, «Sâmbra Oilor, una dintre cele mai vechi tradiții locale», Adevărul, 27 aprilie 2014. https://adevarul.ro/stiri-locale/satu-mare/sambra-oilor-una-dintre-cele-mai-vechi-traditii-1531365.html
- «De ce au fost considerate obștile sătești cea mai strălucită formă de democrație», Adevărul Focșani. https://adevarul.ro/stiri-locale/focsani/de-ce-au-fost-considerate-obstile-satesti-cea-mai-1688026.html
- Codul civil din 1864, art. 728 (text reprodus de notari.pro). https://notari.pro/cod-civil-actualizat/art-728-despre-impartirea-succesiunii-despre-impartire-si-despre-raporturi
- Elinor Ostrom, Governing the Commons, Cambridge University Press, 1990 (cadrul de comparație: cele opt principii de proiectare a comunităților care își gestionează resursele comune).
- Pravilniceasca condică, Wikipedia (ro). https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pravilniceasca_condic%C4%83