DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT. — The word r., in the CIC, is sometimes used (though in truth rarely) in the sense of one convicted or confessing to a crime (e.g., cann. 2233, 2288). More frequently, the expression reus has the procedural meaning of reus conventus, that is, of a d. in criminal or contentious proceedings. Moreover, even under this procedural meaning (which is the precise one) of reus or reus conventus, the expression may have a twofold value: a purely formal value and a more substantive one.
From a purely formal point of view, reus or reus conventus is the person summoned before a court (in contentious or criminal proceedings) as a party, at the request of that other party which took the initiative in the proceedings themselves. This is the meaning 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 person who initiates an action must summon the other party before the latter’s forum. Also from this purely formal point of view, the party against whom an appeal is brought is sometimes regarded as rea conventa, even if in fact that party had taken the initiative in the action. Indeed, the forms of the S. Rota still read: actor seu appellans, conventus seu appellatus. This, however, is not scientifically exact, because the plaintiff does not cease to be the plaintiff even if, having prevailed at first instance, he becomes the respondent on appeal.
From the merely formal point of view, the status of defendant is of primary importance with regard to jurisdiction: both territorial jurisdiction (relative jurisdiction) and jurisdiction ratione dignitatis personarum (absolute and non-waivable jurisdiction). The former is governed by can. 1561, according to which, as a general rule, the d. must be summoned before the forum of his domicile or quasi-domicile. If the d. has several fora, the choice of forum is granted to the plaintiff (1559 § 3). In addition to the general forum constituted by domicile or quasi-domicile (can. 1561), there are special concurrent fora (the forum of the pergrius in urbe, can. 1562; the forum rei sitae, can. 1564; the forum contractus, can. 1565); there are also necessary fora, which exclude the general forum of domicile and quasi-domicile—not absolutely, but nevertheless in a relative sense—so that failure to raise the objection serves to cure the lack of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction by reason of the dignity of the person of the d., on the other hand, is established by can. 1557 (v. COMPETENZA).
Still under the formal aspect, the provision of can. 1600 is very important: reconvention (v.) of a reconvention, it evidently takes into consideration the purely formal status of the person who took the initiative in the proceedings (the plaintiff) and of the person who underwent them (the defendant).
But the expression reus conventus also, and above all, has a substantive meaning: the defendant is the person against whom, or with respect to whom, the application of a concrete legal will is sought. Generally, this defendant, in the substantive sense, is also the person who did not take the initiative in the action and who found himself summoned before the court at the plaintiff’s request; but sometimes (and not infrequently), in this substantive sense, the person who took the initiative in the proceedings may also become the defendant: defendant in the substantive exception or in the counterclaim, or even in the request for incidental determination brought by the other party (that is, by the defendant in the truly formal sense). This substantive meaning of the word reus is found in can. 1748 (actore non probante reus absolutur), where evidently the words actor and reus have precisely a substantive meaning. The d. (in the purely formal sense) who has not proved his exception (in the substantive sense), or the counterclaim or incidental determination requested by him, is defeated with respect to the exception, the counterclaim, and the determination, precisely because substantively he must be regarded as the plaintiff.
REPARATA, santa, martire — Sculpture by Arnolfo di Cambio. Florence, Museo dell’Opera del Duomo.
monstrating his legal right. In a relative sense, all this is true, provided that the words plaintiff and defendant are given the substantive meaning explained above. It should be observed, however, that in canonical procedure, and especially in that of the Rota, the plaintiff and the defendant are ordinarily assigned terms with the same expiration date for presenting evidence and submitting written defenses. The person who nevertheless possesses the greatest procedural privileges is the great defendant, the defendant par excellence, namely the Defender of the Bond (v.) in matrimonial and Holy Orders cases.