TITLE VI:

USUFRUCT
CHAPTER I:
USUFRUCT IN GENERAL

OBJECT OF USUFRUCT; RIGHTS: at present it can be said

that all property can be the object of usufruct.

ART: 562:
DEFINITION OF USUFRUCT: De Buen defines usufruct as a
real right, of a temporary nature, which authorizes its holder to
enjoy all the benefits which results from the normal enjoyment
of anothers property, with the obligation to return, at the
designated time, either the same thing or, in special cases, its
equivalent.

USE AND HABITATION: under the old Civil Code, the rights of
use and habitation were also recognized and provided for.

ART. 524 of that Code provides: use gives the right to

receive, out of the fruits of anothers property, whatever
may be sufficient for the needs of the usuary and of his
family, even should the latter increase. Habitation gives
to the person having this right the authority to occupy in
another' s house the apartment necessary for himself
and for the members of' his family.
These rights have been omitted from the present Code.
o The reason for their elimination, according to the
Code Commission, is that these legal institutions
are unknown in the Philippines.
o During the Japanese occupation of the
Philippines, however, there were many cases of
use and habitation (particularly the latter) in
places of evacuation.
o These rights may now be considered as personal
easements, under ART. 614.

EXTENT OF USUFRUCT: usufruct is a real right and includes

both the jus utendi and the jus fruendi.

The usufructuary, however, is bound to preserve the

form and substance of the thing in usufruct.
This means preservation, not only of the material of
which the object is made up, but also of the form which
makes the thing suitable for the particular purpose for
which the owner intends it.
o Thus, if the usufruct is on a fishpond, it must be
preserved as a fishpond; if on a ricefield, it must
be preserved as a ricefield.
IN ABNORMAL USUFRUCT: the last part of this article,
recognizing the possibility of' alteration, means that the
law or the will of the parties may allow the modification
of the substance of the thing, admitting the quasiusufruct of the Roman Law.
o This has given rise to the classification of
usufructs into normal and abnormal.
o Alteration of the substance of the thing is allowed
in the latter.

TOELNTINO | PROPERTY | AUF SOL 2014

Thus, a usufruct can be created over a right, so long as

the right has its own independent existence.
A servitude, having no existence independent of the
tenements to which it attaches, cannot be the object of
usufruct.
CONSUMABLE THINGS: consumable things cannot be
enjoyed without consuming them; hence, there can be
no right of usufruct independent of the right of
ownership with respect to such things.
o But since the law recognizes usufruct over all
kinds of things, if the thing should be
consumable, the usufruct should be considered
as on their value if they were appraised, or on an
equal quantity and quality if they were not
appraised.
UNPRODUCTIVE THINGS: usufruct can be created
even on sterile or absolutely unproductive land, or
things for mere pleasure, such as promenades, statues
or paintings, even if they do not produce any utility.
ART. 563:

KINDS AS TO CAUSE: usufruct is classified as to cause into:

LEGAL

VOLUNTARY

That provided by
law, such as the
usufruct of the
parents
over
property of their
unemancipated
children.

That created by
the will of private
persons, either by
act inter vivos,
such as contracts
and donations, or
by
act
mortis
causa, such as
testaments.

MIXED

By prescription.

ART. 564:
OTHER CLASSIFICATIONS: under this article, usufruct is
classified as follows:
1)
2)

3)
4)

TOTAL or PARTIAL: depending whether it is constituted

on the whole or part of a thing.
SIMPLE and MULTIPLE: depending upon whether it is
constituted in favor of one or several persons.
o The
latter
into:
SIMULTANEOUS
and
SUCCESSIVE, whether they are to enjoy it at the
same time or one after another.
PURE, CONDITIONAL and WITH A TERM.
Usufruct of THINGS or of RIGHTS, depending upon
whether one or the other is the object.

Page 1 | Bantay

A usufruct over a right if the same nature as the

right which is burdened.

Thus, a usufruct over a real right is also a

real right, and a usufruct over a personal
credit is in itself a credit.

ART. 565:
WILL OF PARTIES PREVAILS: the rights and duties of the
usufructuary provided by law may be modified or eliminated by
the parties.

AUTHORITY TO ALIENATE: the title constituting the

usufruct may validly authorize the usufructuary to
alienate the thing itself held in usufruct.
o If there are qualifications or restrictions on this
authority, they must be observed.
o If the usufructuary is authorized to alienate the
thing in case of necessity, it is the usufructuary
who determines the question of necessity.

EFFECT OF AGREEMENT: the usufructuary does not receive

all the fruits of the property when the usufruct is constituted
only on part of the fruits, and when there is a different
agreement between the parties.

ART. 568:

RIGHTS OF USUFRUCTUARY: the usufructuary has the right

to enjoy the property, to the same extent as the owner, but only
with respect to its use and the receipt of its fruits.

He has a right to administer the property in usufruct.

With respect to the use of the property, he has the right
to receive from the thing all the service or benefit that it
can give.
o This is recognized by ART. 571, which gives the
usufructuary the right to enjoy all the benefits
inherent in the thing.
He cannot, however, extract products which do not
constitute fruits, because he is bound to preserve the
form and substance of the thing.
Thus, he cannot convert an orchard into a grazing field,
nor can he convert a ricefield into fishpond.
But dividends from shares of a corporation are fruits,
whether in the form of cash or of stock dividends, and
therefore belong to the usufructuary.
Usufructuary rights may be transferred, assigned or
otherwise disposed of' by the usufructuary.
Like any other property rights, they are not exempt from
execution and can be sold at public auction.
The fruits of a thing are those which it may produce at
more or less regular intervals, without diminishing its
substance.
o They belong to the usufructuary.
o On the other hand, there are products of a thing
which when taken from it diminishes its
substance, such as minerals from mines and
stones from quarries.

TOELNTINO | PROPERTY | AUF SOL 2014

With respect to hidden treasure, the parties may also

freely stipulate, and even agree that hidden treasure
found on the property shall belong wholly to the
usufructuary.

RIGHTS OF NAKED OWNER: the owner, during the usufruct,

can exercise all the rights of ownership consistent with the
enjoyment of the thing by the usufructuary.

CHAPTER 2:
RIGHTS OF THE USUFRUCTUARY

They form part of the capital and do not pertain to

the usufructuary.
However, if the owner, before the constitution of
the usufruct, has dedicated the property to the
exploitation of such products, these may be
treated as fruits that shall pertain to the
usufructuary.

He can sell or encumber it; and it can be attached by his

creditors.
But none of these acts can affect the rights of the
usufructuary.
The grantee can take possession of the property only
after the expiration of the usufruct; easements created
can be exercised only in so far as they do not prejudice
the usufructuary.
The owner may exercise all actions necessary to protect
his rights, such as the reivindicatory action, the action to
remove clouds or quiet title, and in general all actions
pertaining to an owner.
He is entitled to benefit from products which do not
constitute fruits of the thing.
If treasure is found on the tenement, he gets the onehalf pertaining to the owner.
ART. 567:

UNGATHERED FRUITS: fruits already matured at the time of

the termination of the usufruct, which ordinarily would have
already been gathered by the usufructuary, may remain
ungathered for no fault imputable to him, but because of malice
or an act imputable to the naked owner or a third person, or
even due to force mqjeure or fortuitous event.

In such cases, the fruits should be considered as

belonging to the usufructuary, pursuant to general
principles of law as suppletory to the provisions of the
Code.

EXPENSES OF PRODUCTION: although the usufructuary is

not bound to pay the expenses of cultivation and production to
the naked owner for fruits pending at the beginning of the
usufruct, he should pay such expenses to a third person who
may have incurred them, under the provisions of the last
Page 2 | Bantay

paragraph of this article, and under the general rule in article

443, to which this article merely provides an exception in the
case of the naked owner.

(2) When the things by their nature are intended for

sale, such as the merchandise in a commercial
establishment, and
(3) When the things, whatever their nature, are
delivered under appraisal as equivalent to their
sale; but this does not refer to the obligatory
routine appraisal of movables in the making of
the inventory under ART. 583.

ART. 568:
LEASE BY OWNERS: a lease executed by the owner before
the creation of the usufruct is not extinguished by such
usufruct.
LEASE BY USUFRUCTUARY: the rents derived from the
lease of properties in usufruct are civil fruits, and under ART.
569 they accrue from day to day.

The usufructuary is entitled to receive such rents only

up to the time of the expiration of the usufruct, if the
lease still subsists after the termination of the usufruct.
Thus, if the lease is for five years, and the usufruct
terminates after the lease has been in force only two
years, the usufructuary shall be entitled only to the rents
for those two years; the rents for the remaining period of
the lease will belong to the owner.
ART. 569:

SALE OF FUTURE CROP: the usufructuary may sell a future

crop.

If the sale is considered valid,

the owner is entitled to
receive the price from the
vendee.

ART. 570:
ART. 571:
ART. 572:
EFFECT OF TRANSFER OF RIGHT: the transfer or lease of
the usufruct does not terminate the relation of the usufructuary
with the owner.

The usufructuary and his security continue to be liable in

favor of the owner, for the fulfillment of the former's
obligations, because these obligations are personal and
cannot be extinguished by change of debtor without the
consent of the creditor or owner.
The usufructuary will be liable to the owner for damages
caused by the fault or negligence of the transferee or
the lessee.
The usufruct does not terminate upon the death of the
transferee, but it terminates upon the death of the
usufructuary who has made the transfer.

ALIENATION OF THING IN USUFRUCT: the usufructuary not

being an owner, cannot alienate or dispose of the objects
included in the usufruct.

Thus, he cannot renounce a servitude in favor of the

tenement in usufruct; neither can he mortgage or pledge
the thing, even if they constitute stocks or bonds.
The right of usufruct, however, is sometimes converted
into a right of ownership, and the usufructuary may
dispose of the things in the following cases:
(1) When the things are consumable (ART. 574),

TOELNTINO | PROPERTY | AUF SOL 2014

If the usufruct terminates before the harvest, what are

the legal consequences of such sale?

If the price has been paid in

advance to the usufructuary,
he or his estate must deliver it
to the owner.

The owner, however, may refuse to recognize the sale,

which would be void as to him.
o The sale of a future crop is a sale of property not
belonging to the usufructuary; it is void unless
ratified by the owner.
o The only recourse of the vendee in this case is to
recover from the usufructuary or his estate the
amount that he has paid.
DE BUEN thinks that this sanction is too harsh.
o He suggests that a more equitable solution is to
apply by analogy the provisions of ART. 568,
dividing the price of the sale between the
usufructuary and the owner in proportion to the
length of possession of each in the agricultural
year, but keeping the sale as valid.
o The provisions of ART. 567, PAR. 2, however,
are clear and definite; the fruits growing at the
time the usufruct terminates belong to the owner.
o The provisions of ART. 568, therefore, cannot be
applied.

ALIENATION OF LEGAL USUFRUCT: VALVERDE believes

that o

VALVERDE

MANRESA, MORELL,
CAMPUZANO, SPANISH SC
and CASTAN

Only voluntary usufructs can

be alienated under this article,
because legal usufructs are
created by law for particular
persons in view of certain
relations and therefore cannot
be enjoyed by others who do

While the usufruct of the

surviving spouse under the
old Civil Code could be
alienated, that of the parents
over
the
property
of
unemancipated children could
not be transferred because it
Page 3 | Bantay

not have such relations.

is affected by important
obligations in favor of said
children.

*** The usufruct of the surviving spouse having been abolished

by the present Code, it seems that now there can be no conflict
of views; the legal usufruct of the parents cannot be alienated.

The usufructuary becomes the owner of the

things in usufruct such as a sum of money or a
quantity of liquids or grain; the grantor becomes
merely a creditor entitled to the return of their
value or of things of the same quantity and
quality, according to the circumstances.
ART. 575:
ART. 576:

ART. 573:

ART. 577:
NATURE OF DETERIORATION: in the natural use of' things,
there may occur certain defects calling for repairs for their
preservation, independent of the deterioration produced by age
and time which slowly and without appreciable effects changes
the aspect of the things from day to day.

It is to this latter kind of deterioration that the present

article refers.

LIABILITY TO INDEMNIFY: there are some things which

deteriorate by use and become almost completely
unserviceable, such as clothes and furniture; but even in such
cases, it is sufficient if the usufructuary returns them in the
condition in which they may be found at the time of the
expiration of the usufruct.

The law renders the usufructuary liable only when he

causes deterioration by his fraud or negligence.
Although there is no express provision on the matter, if
the usufructuary does not return the things upon the
expiration of the usufruct, he should pay an indemnity
equivalent to the value of the things at the time of such
expiration.
ART. 574:

USUFRUCT OVER CONSUMABLE THINGS: this special kind

of usufruct, improperly called QUASI-USUFRUCT, is in reality
converted into a simple loan.

It has been included in this part of the Code, because

universal usufructs may often include consummables.
Usufructs over consummables exclusively may be very
rare, but they can be constituted, and it is to them that
the last part of ART. 562 refers when it provides, unless
the title constituting it or the law otherwise provides, in
connection with the obligation of the usufructuary to
preserve the form and the substance of the thing in
usufruct.
Thus, a sum of money can be the subject of usufructs.
The usufruct in this particular case is not upon the
consummable things themselves which are delivered to
the usufructuary, but upon the sum representing their
value or upon a quantity of things of the same kind and
quality."

TOELNTINO | PROPERTY | AUF SOL 2014

ART. 578:
ART. 579:
RIGHTS OF USUFRUCTUARY: whenever the usufructuary
can remove the improvements without injury to the property in
usufruct, he has a right to do so, and the owner cannot prevent
him from doing so even upon payment of their value.

This right, however, does not involve an obligation;

hence, if the usufructuary does not wish to exercise it,
he cannot be compelled by the owner to remove the
improvements.
In the exercise of the right granted by this article, the
usufructuary may demolish or destroy the improvement,
such as a building, provided he leaves the land as it was
before the construction of such improvement.

SC OF SPAIN

MANRESA

The usufructuary who plants

trees on the land in usufruct
cannot cut and remove
them,
because
such
improvements cannot be
removed without injury to the
things.

He CORRECTLY disagrees
with this holding, because
although the cutting of the
trees may injure such trees,
it will not injure the land
which is the thing given in
usufruct and to which the
last part of the present
article refers.

The right of the usufructuary to remove improvements

can be enforced only against the owner, but not against
a purchaser in good faith to whom a clean title has been
issued.

WHY NO INDEMNITY: if the improvements made by the

usufructuary were subject to indemnity, we would have a
dangerous and unjust situation in which the usufructuary could
dispose of the owner's funds, by compelling him to pay for
improvements which perhaps he would not have made.

Page 4 | Bantay

ART. 580:
NATURE OF SET-OFF: this article refers to compensation of
values, and not of rights and obligations.

It is necessary that the improvements should have

increased the value of the property, and that the
damages are imputable to the usufructuary.
The increase in value and the amount of damages are
set off against each other; if the damages exceed the
increase in value, the difference should be paid by the
usufructuary as indemnity; but if the increase in value
exceeds the damages, and the improvements are of
such nature that they can be removed without injury to
the thing in usufruct, the settlement of the difference
must be agreed upon by the parties.
If the improvements are of such a nature that they
cannot be removed without injury, the excess in value
accrues to the owner.
ART. 581:

It may be in a private document, because nothing is

provided bylaw as to its form.

GIVING OF SECURITY: although this article provides that the

security is for the fulfillment of the obligations imposed upon
the usufructuary by this chapter (ARTS. 583 to 602), this
should be understood to mean all the obligations imposed
upon him as such usufructuary, whether included in this
chapter or not, such as the obligation to return the thing upon
the termination of the usufruct, provided for in ART. 612.

The security may be a personal bond, a pledge, or a

mortgage.
ART. 584:
ART. 585:

EXEMPTION OF USUFRUCTUARY: the usufructuary may be

excused from the obligation of making an inventory or giving a
security in the following cases:

ART. 582:

1)

EFFECT OF THE PARTITION: the right of the usufructuary is

not affected by the division of' the property in usufruct among
the co-owners.

2)
3)

CHAPTER 3:
OBLIGATIONS OF THE USUFRUCTUARY
ART. 583:
NOT REQUISITE TO RIGHT: these requirements are not
conditions precedent to the commencement of the right of' the
usufructuary, but merely to the entry upon the possession and
enjoyment of the property.

Even if they are not first complied with, the usufruct will
commence according to its title, but the provisions of
article 586 will apply with respect to the disposition of
the property.

If the naked owner refuses to grant the exemption requested, a

judicial declaration thereof may be obtained, taking into
account the special circumstances of the usufruct.
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO MAKE INVENTORY: the code
does not provide for the effect of the failure to make an
inventory when the usufructuary is not exempt from making it.

MAKING OF INVENTORY: the law does not require the

concurrence of the owner in the making of' the inventory.

It is sufficient for the usufructuary to notify him, and he

may attend or not, personally or through an authorized
representative.
If he does not attend, and subsequently he discovers
omissions or errors in the inventory, he can ask for the
correction; but he will have the burden of proving the
omission or mistake.
The expenses for the making of the inventory are borne
by the usufructuary, because it is his obligation to make
the inventory, and it is a prerequisite to his entry upon
the enjoyment of the property.

TOELNTINO | PROPERTY | AUF SOL 2014

Where the owner waives the giving of a security or

the making of an inventory.
Where the title constituting the usufruct exempts the
usufructuary from any or both of these obligations.
Where the usufructuary asks to be relieved from
these obligations, und no one will be injured by such
exemption, such as in u usufruct over a periodic
income or pension.

Under the Argentine code (ARTS. 2848 and 2849), such

failure does not affect the rights of the usufructuary to
enjoy the property and its fruits; but a prima facie
presumption arises that the property was received by
the usufructuary in good condition, and even if he is
already in possession, he may still be required to make
an inventory.
o The presumption arises even when the
usufructuary enter upon the possession with the
consent of the naked owner.
o It is submitted that these consequences are
acceptable under our law.
Sanchez Roman, however, believes that the effect of
the failure to make an inventory is the same as that of
the failure to give security, and that ART. 586 should
apply.
o We doubt the correctness of this conclusion, in
view of the omission of inventory" from article
586 which mentions only security."
Page 5 | Bantay

ART. 590:

ART. 586 is similar to ART. 584, which refers

only to the security.

ART. 591:
ART. 586:
ART. 592:
RIGHT OF NAKED OWNER: this article grants a potestative
right to the naked owner; if he does not wish to exercise it, he
may deliver the property to the usufructuary.

The delivery of the property, however, cannot be

interpreted as a renunciation of the right to demand the
security.

RIGHT OF USUFRUCTUARY: the usufructuary who does not

possess the property, by virtue of the provisions of this article,
may alienate his right in the same form that he holds it, without
prejudice to the right of the transferee to give the required
security.

But a lease cannot be executed by the usufructuary.

ORDINARY REPAIRS: there are two requisites for ordinary

repairs:
1)
2)

The deteriorations which are caused by time or age, provided

for in ART. 573, and the destruction or consumption of the
thing by use, provided for in ART. 574, do not fall within the
concept of ordinary repairs.

ART. 587:
CAUCION JURATORIA: the sworn undertaking referred to in
this article is known as caucion juratoria.

The security given by the usufructuary may be a

personal bond, a pledge, or a mortgage. It is only by
way of exception that the caucion juratoria is allowed,
and only under the special circumstances mentioned in
this article, upon petition of the usufructuary, and
according to judicial order.
It is permitted as a matter of common humanity.
It would be lamentable, for instance, if a person with a
family in need of shelter cannot enjoy the use of a
house included in the usufruct simply because he
cannot furnish the security.
Therefore a usufructuary who holds property under
caucion juratoria can neither alienate his right nor lease
the property, for that would mean that he does not need
the dwelling or the implements and furniture.
ART. 588:

EFFECT OF SECURITY: upon giving the security, the

usufructuary will be entitled to all the benefits accruing since
the time when he should have begun to receive them.

The effect of the security is thus retroactive.

ART. 589:

WHEN ACTION MAY BE BROUGHT: when damages are

suffered by the property because of the fault or negligence of
the usufructuary, it is not necessary for the naked owner to
wait for the termination of the usufruct before bringing an
action to recover the proper indemnity.

TOELNTINO | PROPERTY | AUF SOL 2014

That the deteriorations or defects arise from the natural

use of the thing, and
That the repairs are necessary for the preservation of
the thing.

PRIOR TO USUFRUCT: the usufructuary is bound to

pay only for the repairs made during the existence of the
usufruct.
o He cannot be obliged to pay for the expenses for
repairs already made before he enters upon the
enjoyment of the thing.
o If the defects requiring ordinary repairs existed
already at the time the usufruct began, the
obligation to defray the ordinary repairs falls upon
the owner; if he does not do so, he suffers the
damages occasioned to his property, without
responsibility on the part of the usufructuary.
EFFECT OF RENUNCIATION: when the ordinary
repairs are due to defects caused by the fault of the
usufructuary he cannot exempt himself from liability by
renouncing the usufruct.
o He will still be liable for damages under the
general rule of liability for fault or negligence.
o But if the defects existing before the renunciation
are occasioned by the ordinary use of the thing,
the usufructuary may exempt himself from
making the repairs by returning to the owner the
fruits received during the time that the defects
took place.
o The expenses for repairs are a charge upon the
enjoyment of the property; hence, if he keeps
the fruits, he must defray those expenses even
after he has renounced the usufruct.
o All defects arising after the renunciation,
however, must be repaired at the expense of the
owner.
ART. 593:
ART. 594:

EXTRAORDINARY REPAIRS: the defects or deteriorations

requiring extraordinary repairs are of two kinds:

Page 6 | Bantay

1)

2)

Those caused by exceptional circumstances, whether or

not they are necessary for the preservation of the thing,
and
Those caused by the natural use of the thing, but are
not necessary for its preservation.

BOME BY OWNER: the expenses for extraordinary repairs are

borne by the owner; but the usufructuary cannot compel him to
make such repairs, because the law does not impose such
repairs as an obligation of the owner.

Neither is the usufructuary bound to make such repairs

if the owner chooses not to make them; it is optional for
the usufructuary to make such repairs or not.
If the need for the repairs is urgent, such that they are
required for preservation, the law requires the
usufructuary to give notice thereof' to the owner; if it is
not urgent, there is no obligation to give notice.
In both cases, whether notice was given or not, the
owner may make the repairs, and collect from the
usufructuary the legal interest on the amount invested,
as long as the usufruct lasts.
If the owner does not make them, the usufructuary may
make them, but only when they are necessary for
preservation, and he shall be entitled to indemnity.

PAYMENT OF INTEREST: it is the usufructuary who benefits

by the extraordinary repairs, which restore the thing to its
condition of usefulness.

Hence, if the owner pays for such repairs, the

usufructuary should pay legal interest on the amount
invested, until the usufruct expires.

WHEN PAID BY USUFRUCTUARY: the usufructuary who has

made the extraordinary repairs necessary for preservation, is
entitled to recover from the owner the increase in value which
the tenement acquired by reason of such works.

In order to determine this increase, the value of the

tenement when the repairs became necessary, and its
value after such repairs have been completed, should
be taken into account; the difference constitutes the
increase in value.
ART. 595:

RIGHTS OF PARTIES: any advantage or increase in the use

of enjoyment of the thing due to the improvements or plantings
introduced by the owner will inure to the benefit of the
usufructuary.

But the usufructuary is not bound to pay interest on the

investment of the owner, because the improvements
have been made voluntarily by the latter.

TOELNTINO | PROPERTY | AUF SOL 2014

ART. 596:
EXPENSES AFFECTING FRUITS: the expenses of cultivation
and gathering of fruits, those for feeding a herd of cattle, life
pensions affecting determinate property, and those for ordinary
repairs, are charges which affect the fruits and are for the
account of the usufructuary.

MANRESA

SANCHEZ ROMAN

Annual charges and taxes are

always chargeable against
the usufructuary, because
they are considered by the
law as imposed upon the
fruits."

MORE LOGICAL VIEW: such

annual charges and taxes are
to be paid by the usufructuary
only when they can be
considered as a lien upon the
fruits.

The annual charges and taxes for which the

usufructuary is liable cannot include those levied upon
the tenement itself, but only those levied upon the
persons in possession or enjoyment thereof.
These charges, for the first and the last years of the
usufruct, are not borne entirely by the usufructuary, but
must be divided between him and the owner in the
same manner as civil fruits, that is, in proportion to the
periods of possession.
ART. 597:

PAYMENT OF LAND TAX:

MANRESA

SUPREME COURT

Land taxes, being payable

annually,
are chargeable
against the usufructuary." The
same view has been held by
our Court of Appeals, which
ruled that the payment of land
taxes by a usufructuary is not
proof of adverse possession
against the owner because
such payment is an obligation
of the usufructuary.

A land tax is a burden upon

the capital, that is, upon the
real value of the property, and
under the present article it
should be paid by the owner.
*** Correct construction of the
law, and conforms to the
stand of Sanchez Roman that
annual charges and taxes are
chargeable
against
the
usufructuary only when they
may be considered as a lien
upon the fruits.

ART. 598:
ART. 599:

Page 7 | Bantay

ART. 600:
WHEN USUFRUCT UNIVERSAL: when the usufruct is
constituted over all the property of the owner by act inter vivos,
and some tenements are mortgaged, the usufructuary is bound
to pay for such mortgage only in the cases mentioned in ART.
598; namely, when there is an express stipulation to that effect,
or when the usufruct was created in fraud of creditors.
ART. 601:
NOTICE TO OWNER: the usufructuary must give notice to the
owner of acts which may prejudice the rights of ownership;
this article does not refer merely to the rights of the naked
owner.

It may be said that it is only in those cases where the

fruits or the right of usufruct, as a right personal to the
usufructuary, are involved, that it is not necessary for
the usufructuary to give notice to the owner.
Ordinarily, when the usufructuary is disturbed in his
possession, he has his own right of action against the
intruder.
But such acts affecting possession should also be made
known by the usufructuary to the owner, because the
latter has an interest in defending it because the
usufruct will ultimately revert to him, and because injury
to the possession will also result in injury to the right of
ownership.
ART. 602:

REASON FOR ARTICLE: the expenses of suits in connection

with the possession, use and enjoyment of the things are
generally borne by the usufructuary, because they affect his
own rights as usufructuary.
CHAPTER 4:
EXTINGUISHMENT OF USUFRUCT
ART. 603:
DEATH OF USUFRUCTUARY: the death of the usufructuary
is the natural end of the usufruct, which is essentially a life
benefit.

If a period or a resolutory condition is stipulated, and the

usufructuary dies before the expiration of the period or
the happening of the resolutory condition, is the usufruct
extinguished, or must it continue to the end of the period
or the fulfillment of the condition?

NAVARRO
AMANDI,
SANCHEZ
ROMAN,
PLANIOL &
RIPERT

MANRESA

SCAEVOLA and
VALVERDE;
CASTAN and
SPANISH SC;
TOLENTINO

The
usufruct
cannot be extended beyond the
lifetime
of
the
usufructuary, because of the personal character of
this juridical relation. They maintain
that death extinguishes all kinds of
usufruct, even if
there is a period or
resolutory condition which has not
expired or happened, it being supposed that the period of condition
was intended to
shorten the period
rather than prolong
it
beyond
the
lifetime
of
the
usufructuary.

The usufruct in
such cases subsists
and
is
transmitted to the
heirs of the usufructtuary, because
the will of the
parties must be
respected. Thus, if
the usuiruct is
constituted for a
certain number of
years, or with a
resolutory
condition, or during
the lifetime of the
grantor or of a third
person, the usufruct will continue
for the time indicated,
because
that is the will or
intention of the
parties interested.

The usufruct will

not be terminated
by the death of the
usufructuary only
when it is expressly stipulated that
it shall continue
even after such
death until the
expiration of the
period or the happening of the condition
agreed
upon. But when
there is no such
saving
clause,
death will extinguish the usufruct,
even if a period or
condition is stipulated. In this way,
the
essential
personal character
of the usufruct is
preserved, and at
the same time the
will of the parties is
respected
when
made clear and
manifest.

Our SC seems to
agree with this
view, when in one
case it said that
the utmost period
for which a usufruct can endure, if
constituted in favor
of a natural person, is the lifetime
of a usufructuary."

COMPUTATION OF PERIOD: in determining the period of the

usufruct, the time during which the usufructuary has not
enjoyed the thing because of ignorance, dispossession by
others, or any other cause, shall be counted against him. But
the delay in the enjoyment of the property, not imputable to his
fault or neglect, should not prejudice him.
MERGER: there is a merger that will extinguish the usufruct
when the naked ownership and the usufruct come to be held
by the same person.

TOELNTINO | PROPERTY | AUF SOL 2014

Thus, where a widow has a usufruct, over half of the

estate of her deceased husband, and she is given by
the will of said husband one-half of his estate, the
Page 8 | Bantay

ART. 608:

usufruct is extinguished and she becomes absolute

owner of such half.
RENUNCIATION: waiver means a voluntary surrender of the
rights of the usufructuary, made by him with intent to so
surrender them.

The renunciation of the usufruct, to prove effective, must

be express.
o Tacit renunciation is not sufficient.
The renunciation does not need the consent or
acceptance by the owner, because it is a mere
abandonment of a right by the usufructuary.

BOTH SHARE INSURANCE: whatever the proportion in which

the usufructuary and the owner share in the payment of
insurance, their rights, in case of loss, will be the same as that
provided in the first paragraph of this article, except when they
have some lawful agreement to the contrary.

TERMINATION: the termination referred to in PAR. 6, refers to

the right of the person constituting the usufruct, and not to a
condition imposed upon the usufruct itself.

Thus, if a person constituted a usufruct in the belief that

he was owner of the property, and then he is later
defeated in an action for recovery of title to such
property, it is clear that the usufruct which he created
must also terminate.

PRESCRIPTION: it is not non-use which extinguishes the

usufruct by prescription, but the use by a third person.

There can be no prescription, however, as long as the

usufructuary receives the rents from the lease of the
property, or he enjoys the price of the sale of his right; in
both cases, the usufructuary enjoys his rights as
usufructuary.

If the owner employs the insurance money to

reconstruct the building, he must invest the entire
proceeds; if he invests less, the usufructuary will have
the right to legal interest on the amount not invested.
The building should have similar conditions to that
destroyed; if he invests a larger amount than what he
received from the insurance, he cannot recover interest
from the usufructuary for the enjoyment of the new
building.

OWNER PAYS INSURANCE: when the usufructuary refuses

to share in the payment of the insurance, and the owner
insures alone, the latter is entitled to the insurance money.

OTHER CAUSES: besides those mentioned in the present

article, the following are causes for extinguishment of
usufructs: non-fulfillment of conditions, any cause agreed upon
by the parties as a ground for terminating the usufruct, the
rescission or annulment of the act constituting the usufruct,
and the special causes for extinguishment of legal usufructs.
ART. 604:
ART. 605:

He has no obligation to invest it in rebuilding the

tenement.
The rights of the usufructuary in such case will be those
provided in ART, 607.
The mere fact that the owner pays the premiums,
however, is not sufficient to prove that the usufructuary
refused to contribute thereto.
o The mere omission to contribute, or ignorance of
the fact that the payment is being made should
not be considered as a refusal.
o The latter must be roved; and lf refusal of the
usufructuary cannot be established, or it is shown
that the usufructuary failed to contribute because
he did not know of the insurance.
o Manresa, Sanchez Roman, Scaevola, De Buen,
and Castan believe that the provisions of
paragraph 1 shall be observed, as if both had
contributed to the payment of premiums, the
usufructuary reimbursing the owner for the part of
the premiums corresponding to him.

ART. 606:

ART. 609:

ART. 607:

ART. 610:

USUFRUCT ON BUILDING: where a building over which a life

usufruct was constituted in favor of one person and the naked
ownership was vested in another, was destroyed during the
war, any war damage payment received by the naked owner
should also be subject to the usufruct for life.

EFFECT OF BAD USE: the bad use of a thing entitles the

owner to demand the delivery and administration of the thing.

If such payment has not been used in the construction

of a new building, the usufructuary should be paid legal
interest from the time the war damage payment was
actually received until his death.

TOELNTINO | PROPERTY | AUF SOL 2014

To entitle him to this right, the bad use must cause

considerable injury, not to the thing, but to him (owner).
When there is a sufficient security, this can seldom
happen, because there can be no injury to the owner
who can recover on the security.
But if there is no security, and the usufructuary does not
have other property, the resulting prejudice is easy/to
see.
Page 9 | Bantay

It is for the courts to determine in each case whether the

bad use produces such considerable injury to the owner
as would justify the exercise of the right granted by this
article.
o The exercise of' this remedy does not extinguish
the usufruct.
ART. 611:

(the fruits of which would then be payable to her) or payment of

legal interest on the amount of the purchase price of the land.
RATIO: Those payments cannot be characterized as rentals
like those which had been paid to Helen Schon as usufructuary
prior to the promulgation of Presidential Decree No. 27 and
prior to the effectivity of Operation Land Transfer.
-

ART. 612:
LOCSIN VS. VALENZUELA
FACTS: Petitioner Ramona R. Locsin, Teresita Guanzon, Celia
R. Sibug, Maria Rosa R. Perez, Editha Ylanan and Ana Marie
R. Benedicto were co-owners of a large tract of agricultural
land known as "Hacienda Villa Regalado" located in Barrio
Panubigan Canlaon City, Negros Occidental. A portion of this
land consisting of an area of 60.07464 hectares, was subject to
the lifetime usufructuary rights of respondent HELEN SCHON.
The bulk of this lot was cultivated by the following lesseestenants who customarily delivered the rentals to Helen Schon.
On 22 October 1972, after the onset of the martial law
administration of former President Marcos, Presidential Decree
No. 27 was promulgated, decreeing the "Emancipation of
Tenants." The tract of land owned in common by petitioners,
including the portion thereof subject to Helen Schon's
usufructuary rights, fell within the scope of the "Operation Land
Transfer". Petitioners through counsel sought the opinion of the
DAR as to who (petitioners or respondent Helen Schon) should
be entitled to receive the rental payments which continued to
be made by the respondent tenants to Helen Schon. The DAR
District Officer rendered an opinion on 13 May 1977 that the
rental payments as of October 1972 were properly considered
as amortization payments for the land and as such should
pertain to the landowners and not to the usufructuary.
ISSUES: as between the naked owners and the usufructuary,
who should be entitled to the amounts paid by the tenants
beginning Oct. 21, 1972? PETITIONERS.
-

What is the legal character of the payments made by

the tenants beginning Oct. 21, 1972 payments on the
price of the land itself or civil fruits of the land?
PAYMENTS ON THE LAND / COMPENSATION.
WON ART. 609 is applicable in this case. YES, by
analogy.

RE: rights retained by Helen Schon as a usufructuary after the

effectivity of PD 27.
-

PRIVATE RESPONDENT HELEN SCHON: those amounts

should pertain to her considering that her rights as
usufructuary persist during her lifetime and have not been
extinguished by operation of the Land Reform Law. She further
argues that assuming her usufructuary rights had been
extinguished, the provisions of ART. 609 of the Civil Code
should be applied, and that thereunder she would be entitled
either to replacement of the land burdened with her usufruct
TOELNTINO | PROPERTY | AUF SOL 2014

The usufruct which had therefore existed as a jus in re

aliena in favor of Helen Schon was effectively
extinguished by Presidential Decree No. 27.
Presidential Decree No. 27 was enacted to
"emancipate" the tenants from the "bondage of the soil"
by giving to tenants-farmers ownership of the land which
they were cultivating upon the assumption that they
would work harder to improve their lot in life if they
became landowners rather than mere tillers of
somebody else's land.
o To hold Helen Schon as entitled to continue
enjoying, as usufructuary, the natural or civil fruits
of Lot No. 2-C-A-3, would be to set at naught the
major purpose projected by Presidential Decree
No. 27 and maintained by Executive Order No.
228.

RE: ART. 609: it follows that respondent Helen Schon, so long

as her rights as usufructuary persist under the instrument
which gave birth to such rights, would be entitled to a
replacement reasonably equivalent to the land previously
burdened with her usufructuary right, or to legal interest on the
amount of the indemnity or cost of the land paid by private
respondent tenants-farmers and the Land Bank.
-

PETITIONERS: the payments made by private respondent

tenants to private respondent Helen Schon beginning on 21
October 1972 should be considered as amortization payments
for the price of the land and as such should belong to the
landowners and not to the usufructuary.

Payments made on or after Oct. 21, 1972 constituted

amortization payments on the cost of the land that they
were required to pay under Presidential Decree No. 27.
These payments, therefore, legally pertain to petitioners,
the former landowners as part of the compensation for
the dominion over land of which they were deprived by
operation of Presidential Decree No. 27.

While the option or choice belongs to petitioners,

considering that Helen Schon had already received part
of the purchase price of the land previously owned by
petitioners from private respondent tenants-farmers, and
in the interest of expeditious justice, we consider it the
second alternative that should be given effect.
Thus, from the monies that she actually received from
private respondent tenants-farmers on and after 21
October 1972, respondent Helen Schon is entitled to
retain an amount equivalent to the legal interest on said
amounts for every year that the usufruct would by its
own terms have continued to exist had it not been
extinguished by operation of Presidential Decree No.
27; the balance of such amounts received by her shall
be turned over to petitioners. She is also entitled to the
same right in respect of the balance of the price of the
land petitioners presumably received from the Land
Bank.

Page 10 | Bantay