Short answer. Not in the ordinary way. Wedding jewellery, clothing and outfit given by parents or ascendants are protected: they are reduced only to the extent they exceed one-tenth of what your parent could freely dispose of by will. Below that ceiling they stand, even if other heirs complain.
What the law says
Wedding gifts by parents and ascendants consisting of jewelry, clothing, and outfit, shall not be reduced as inofficious except insofar as they may exceed one-tenth of the sum which is disposable by will.
Civil Code, Article 1070 — Wedding Gifts. Read the full provision →
What the article actually protects
The provision is narrow, and its limits matter. It covers gifts by parents and ascendants — not gifts from an uncle, a godparent, or a friend — and only gifts consisting of jewelry, clothing, and outfit. A car, a house, a lot or a sum of money handed over at the wedding is not covered, however festive the occasion. Those larger gifts are treated as ordinary donations and are exposed to the usual rules on collation and reduction. So the first question is never sentiment; it is what the gift physically was and who gave it.
The one-tenth ceiling
A donation is inofficious when it eats into the legitime that the law reserves for compulsory heirs; an inofficious donation is cut back after the donor dies. Wedding gifts of this kind are exempted from that treatment, but not without limit. The exemption runs only up to one-tenth of the sum the parent could dispose of freely by will. Value the gifts, work out the free portion of the estate, take one-tenth of it, and only the excess above that line is vulnerable. Nothing below the line is touched, whatever the other heirs feel about it.
Reduction is not the same as collation
Two different mechanisms are often confused. Reduction cuts a donation down because it impaired a legitime. Collation brings the value of a lifetime gift back into the accounting so that the child who received it is charged with it against his own share. This article speaks to reduction — it says these wedding gifts shall not be reduced as inofficious within the ceiling. It does not by itself decide every question about how the gift is accounted for when the estate is finally divided, which is why the point is argued more often than it should be.
If a sibling raises it during settlement
Expect the challenge to turn on evidence rather than principle. What was given, when, by whom, and what it was worth at the time are all matters of proof — receipts, appraisals, photographs, and the testimony of people who were there. Where a gift mixes categories, say a jewellery set given together with a cash envelope, the two are not treated alike and should be valued separately. Raise the point in the settlement proceeding itself rather than agreeing to a partition first; once a deed of partition is signed, unwinding it is far harder than getting the figures right at the outset.