REO AND CONVENTUS. - The word "reus" (defendant), in the CIC [Code of Canon Law], is sometimes (though in truth rarely) taken in the sense of one convicted or confessed of a crime (e.g., cann. 2233, 2288). More frequently the expression reus has the procedural meaning of reus conventus, that is, of the defendant in a criminal or contentious trial. Moreover, even under this procedural meaning (which is the exact one) of reus or reus conventus, the expression can have a twofold value: a purely formal value and a more substantial one.
From a purely formal point of view, reus or reus conventus is the one who is cited in judgment (contentious or criminal) as a party, at the instance of that other party who took the initiative of the judgment itself. This is the value of the word reus in cann. 1670 §2 and 1874 §2, and especially in can. 1559 §3, where the ancient rule is sanctioned: actor sequitur forum rei.
As a general rule, that is, the one who takes the initiative of a case must convene the other party in the latter's forum. Always from this purely formal point of view, the party against whom a grievance is brought is sometimes considered rea conventa, even if in reality it was that party who took the initiative of the action. Indeed, in the formularies of the S. Rota [Sacred Roman Rota] one still reads: actor seu appellans, conventus seu appellatus. Which, however, is not scientifically exact, because the plaintiff does not cease to be plaintiff even if, having won at first instance, he becomes the appellee at the appellate stage.
From the merely formal point of view, the status of defendant is above all important for the effects of competence; both territorial competence (relative competence) and competence ratione dignitatis personarum (absolute and non-derogable competence). The former is governed by can. 1561, whereby as a general rule the defendant must be convened before the forum of his domicile or quasi-domicile. If the defendant has several forums, the choice of forum is granted to the plaintiff (1559 §3). Besides the general forum constituted by domicile or quasi-domicile (can. 1561), there are concurrent special forums (the forum of the peregrinus in urbe, can. 1562, the forum rei sitae, can. 1564, the forum contractus, can. 1565); there are, moreover, necessary forums, which exclude the general forum of domicile and quasi-domicile, not in an absolute sense, but still in a relative sense, so that the absence of an objection serves to cure the incompetence. Competence by reason of the dignity of the person of the defendant is, on the other hand, sanctioned by can. 1557 (v. COMPETENZA).
Always from the formal aspect, the provision of can. 1600 is very important: in prohibiting the counterclaim (v.) of a counterclaim, it evidently considers the purely formal status of the one who took the initiative of the judgment (plaintiff) and of the one who underwent it (defendant).
But the word reus conventus also and above all has a substantial meaning: the defendant is the one against whom or with respect to whom the application of a concrete will of the law is sought. Generally this defendant, in the substantial sense, is also the one who did not take the initiative of the case and who found himself called into judgment at the instance of the plaintiff; but sometimes (and not infrequently) in this substantial sense even the one who took the initiative of the judgment can become a defendant; a defendant in the substantive exception or in the counterclaim or also in the request for incidental determination proposed by the other party (that is, by the defendant in the truly formal sense). This substantial meaning of the word reus is found in can. 1748 (actore non probante reus absolvitur); where evidently the words actor and reus have precisely a substantial meaning. The defendant (in the purely formal sense) who has not proved his exception (in the substantial sense) or the counterclaim or the incidental determination requested by him, is defeated in the exception, in the counterclaim and in the determination, precisely because substantially he is to be considered the plaintiff.
It may be said that in a trial the status of defendant is more fundamental than that of plaintiff, and that it is for the plaintiff to speak first, to disclose first, to deduce first, to demonstrate first his good right.
In a relative sense all this is true, provided that the words plaintiff and defendant are given the substantial meaning illustrated above. It is to be observed, however, that in canonical procedure and especially in that of the Rota, terms of simultaneous expiry are customarily assigned to both plaintiff and defendant, for adducing proofs and for submitting written defenses. What instead accumulates the greatest procedural privileges is still the great defendant, the defendant par excellence, that is, the Defender of the Bond (v.) in matrimonial causes and causes of Sacred Ordination.
Bibliography4 works
Corrado Bernardini