This article examines the historical dynamics of interaction between family values and property law institutions. The research traces how categories of paternal power, family property, ancestral estates, and inheritance institutions ensured the preservation of property within the family unit. The study is based on a comprehensive analysis of Roman law, medieval European legal systems, the legal traditions of Ancient Rus and the Russian Empire, and a comparative analysis with Confucian legal traditions of China. The research methodology employs historical-legal and comparative-legal analysis, allowing the identification of four fundamental models of interaction between family and property: symbiosis and mutual enrichment (early Roman law, ancient Russian customary law), hierarchical subordination (imperial models of property management), isolation and intolerance (legal regimes separating family property from circulation), and social engineering (attempts to construct new forms of family-property relations). The study reveals that throughout most of history, property law was constructed not so much as the right of an individual owner, but rather as the right of the family collective. This found expression in special legal institutions: mancipium in Roman law with its division of things into *res mancipi* and *res nec mancipi*; ancestral votchinas in Russian law with the right of kin redemption; entails and marriage portions in English law; and family property in Chinese Confucian legal tradition. The article identifies specific legal mechanisms that limited individual freedom of property disposal in favor of family interests: restrictions on the alienation of particularly significant objects; special procedures for the alienation of ancestral property; the institution of primogeniture; the Falcidian quarter in Roman inheritance law; and the right of kin redemption in Russian law. These mechanisms constituted a system of legal guarantees ensuring that property remained within the family even when the current owner was willing to part with it. Special attention is paid to the legal dualism of family and individually acquired property characteristic of most legal systems. Russian imperial law, like many other legal systems, drew a clear distinction between ancestral (family) property and acquired (individual) property. The former was subject to a special protection regime, while the latter could be disposed of more freely. A particularly illustrative case study is presented from 1866 Russian judicial practice concerning a merchants inheritance dispute, demonstrating the collision between testamentary freedom and the legal order of ancestral property inheritance. This case reveals the economic scale of merchant fortunes, the social complexities of second marriages with children from different marriages, and the gender aspects of inheritance rights. The comparative analysis with Chinese Confucian legal tradition reveals a fundamentally different model of the connection between family and property. In ancient China, property had collective value as family property, recognized by both law and tradition. This approach was rooted in Confucian values emphasizing the central role of family in society. The article concludes that the historical experience of implementing family values in property law remains relevant for modern legal science and practice. Many contemporary discussions about family property, protection of family members rights in the alienation of common property, and the need for a special legal regime for residential premises where a family lives have deep historical roots. The research demonstrates that throughout history, property law was not merely a set of individual rights but a complex system balancing individual freedom with the need to preserve the material foundation of the family as a basic social institution. Modern law continues to search for a balance between these values, and historical experience can help avoid mistakes and use time-tested mechanisms for more effective protection of family values in contemporary property law.
Вера Белявская (Thu,) studied this question.