trees planted by the usurper, I would have planted them myself, and my trees would now be like the usurper’s trees. He has deprived me of the benefit of the land throughout this period, while he gains no benefit from his plantings if he uproots them.

Second: “compensation for its diminution.” Does the land decrease in value because a building has been erected upon it? Yes, it may decrease—for example, if some of its firm soil has been taken away, or the like. In the case of planting, however, the diminution is clear, because farmers call land that has not been planted virgin land; once it has been planted, it is no longer as good. Thus, there is a diminution, and he is liable for compensation for it. How is this determined? We say: the land is appraised both as planted and as unplanted—that is, it is appraised as virgin land and as land from which the plantings have been removed. The difference between the two valuations is the compensation for the diminution, and the usurper is held liable for it.

Third: “levelling it,” meaning levelling the land. It is well known that, after the building upon it has been demolished, there will inevitably be pits in the ground and remaining rubble, such as walls and the foundations of walls. So we say: the usurper is required to level the land and restore it to its former condition.

Fourth: “the rent,” meaning the rent of the land for the period during which the usurper held it. Thus, if we assume that he usurped it for four years, we require him to pay its rent for four years. But is he required to pay its rent as inhabited and developed property, or its rent as vacant, undeveloped land? Since we have said that the increase belongs to the owner of the property, it is appraised as inhabited and developed, for the usurper made it into residential buildings; therefore, the rent belongs to the owner.

It is also possible to say that this rent resulted from the usurper’s construction