In domestic romanism, Roman private law

In Russian romanism, the law of Roman private property was interpreted as having unlimited character, i.e. extremely close in its legal construction to the right of bourgeois private property. Confirmation of this position was considered the emergence of ownership of property, which contributed to the liberation of private property from the constraints of Cyrillic law.
European novelists M. Caser, F. Schulz and G. Dioshdi adhered to the opposite point of view. They believed that the most important features of Roman property law were not unlimited, but, firstly, the presence of a legal basis (titulus), and secondly, the presence of dominance over a thing “in full law”. The Hungarian scientist G. Diosdi generally denied the existence of bonitarial property. Russian researcher V.A. Saveliev, having carefully analyzed the sources and opinions of the opposing sides, came to the conclusion that the arguments of European scientists seem more compelling.
What is your position on this issue? Justify your point of view with references to sources of Roman law.