The big difference between these institutions is that the privilege arises from the law because of the cause of credit, while the anti-cresis arises from the will of the parties and the creditor gives no preferential right to GARCIA GRANERO, M.: On the legal nature of The Law of The Antique, Critical Journal of Real Estate Law, 1945. As a real autonomous right on the basis of a guarantee, Antifesis grants the holder a number of characteristic rights, indeed: With regard to the part of the Antifesis: LASARTE ALVAREZ: Principles of Civil Law, Volume V, Part Two, Trivium, Madrid, 1997. Mateos Alarcén, Manual, Studies on the Civil Code of the Federal District, Volume III. Treaty on Commitments and Contracts, Mexico, 1892. SANZ FERNANDEZ A: “The right of favor in antiquity”, Private Code 1934 The Italian Civil Code of 1865 began not to pass the contractual type called “collateral” and not to treat Antifesis as a contractual subspecies, but as an autonomous contract. Moreover, this code clearly determines the personal nature of the anti-cractic creditor`s law, noting that the anti-fesis has “only an impact on debtors, creditors and its heirs.” The characteristic element of the anti-crisis is the right to support the fruits to allocate them to the interest or capital of a debt or both, there is no usufruit. Although Roman law has adopted the anti-Fesis of Greek law is a general condition, there are many doubts about the regime to which the institution of Rome was subjected, according to the prevailing opinion that Manigk and other authors do not agree, that this regime could also be summarized: they thus left great doubts about the nature and effects of the Antichèse. In particular, conflicting interpretations have been made as to whether the uncratic creditor should be granted a real right or a simple right of credit. Anyway, the Napoleonic code has placed the anti-crisis fight in the title, which is enshrined in “Guaranteed,” which is simply defined as a contract, by which the debtor gives the creditor something for debt security and is divided into clothing when the thing delivered is loose and anti-crisis, when it comes to real estate. Comfort, which might otherwise be the object of personal goods, is essentially free and does not imply the obligation to assign fruits that characterize the Antichrese. Not to mention their deep historical ties, the two institutions are very different here, because the anti-crisis concerns real estate. Moreover, the garment gives the creditor a real right, which constitutes real security, while the anti-Fesis merely creates credit rights.
Regardless of the possible circumstances in Egyptian and Assyrian legislation, we know that there was certainly an anti-crisis crisis crisis in Greece related to clothing, which allowed the pygmyatitium creditor to collect the fruits of the given thing in clothing and not the interest on the debt. Instead, there are doubts as to whether the Greeks used it in addition to other treaties; In all cases, its most common form and use was that the lender enjoyed a fertile property from its debtor, while the debtor used his money and was therefore called the “anti-fesis” institution, which literally means “against use” or “against enjoyment”. Aguilar recalls (2009) that Antichrese has a rough and not quite well-known history.