Short answer. No. Article 579 lets the usufructuary make useful improvements or spend for mere pleasure as he sees fit, but states plainly that he has no right to be indemnified for them. His only remedy is removal, and only where the improvement can come out without damaging the property.
What the law says
The usufructuary may make on the property held in usufruct such useful improvements or expenses for mere pleasure as he may deem proper, provided he does not alter its form or substance; but he shall have no right to be indemnified therefor. He may, however, remove such improvements, should it be possible to do so without damage to the property.
Civil Code, Article 579 — Improvements by the Usufructuary. Read the full provision →
Freedom to build, at your own cost
The article is generous and unforgiving in the same sentence. You need nobody's permission — the improvement is made as he may deem proper, and the owner cannot object to useful work or even to spending for pleasure. What you do not get is any claim for the money. That trade is deliberate. A usufruct is a temporary right over somebody else's thing, and if the holder could improve at will and then present a bill, he could effectively force the owner to buy improvements the owner never asked for and may not want.
The limit that matters more than the indemnity
Everything permitted is provided he does not alter its form or substance. That condition is the boundary of the whole right, and work that crosses it is not an unreimbursed improvement — it is a breach. Converting a residence into something else, demolishing part of the structure, changing the character of the land, reconfiguring a building so that what returns to the owner is a different thing: these fall outside the article's permission altogether, and expose the usufructuary rather than merely leaving him out of pocket.
Removal is the only recovery, and it is narrower than it sounds
The right to take improvements away is conditioned on doing so without damage to the property, which excludes most of what people actually build. Fixtures, an extension keyed into the existing structure, concrete works, planting established in the ground — these cannot come out clean, so they stay and they stay unpaid. What is realistically removable is what was installed to be removable: equipment, fittings, air-conditioning units, temporary structures. The distinction is worth thinking about before construction rather than at the end of the usufruct.
Deal with it in the instrument, not afterwards
The rule can be arranged around. A usufruct arises from an act of a person as often as from the law, and the deed, will or contract creating it can provide for what happens to improvements — that the owner will pay for specified work, that consent will be sought first, that certain items are to be treated as removable. Where you are already past that point, the useful record is an inventory of the property's condition at the start and receipts identifying which items were installed separately, since that is what a removal claim turns on.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Mercedes Moralidad vs. Sps. Diosdado Pemes etc, G.R. No. 152809, August 3, 2006 — read the decision on LawPhil →