Can a usufructuary remove the improvements they made if it can be done without damaging the property?

A usufructuary may improve, within limits

A usufructuary enjoys the use and fruits of property that belongs to someone else, and the law allows him to enhance it. Article 579 says he may make on the property such useful improvements, or expenses for mere pleasure, as he deems proper, provided he does not alter its form or substance. He can better the property or add features for his enjoyment, but he must not change its essential character or transform what it fundamentally is. The improvement must sit within the property as it stands, not remake it into something else.

No right to indemnity

Making improvements does not create a claim for repayment. The article is explicit that he shall have no right to be indemnified therefor. When the usufruct ends, the usufructuary cannot demand that the owner pay him for the useful or pleasurable improvements he chose to make. He undertook them for his own benefit during the usufruct, and the law does not turn that voluntary spending into a debt the owner must settle. This keeps the owner from being saddled with costs for improvements he never asked for.

But a right to remove

Instead of indemnity, the usufructuary is given a right of removal. The article provides that he may, however, remove such improvements, should it be possible to do so without damage to the property. So although he cannot be paid for what he added, he may take it back if he can do so cleanly. The condition is important: removal must not harm the property held in usufruct. If detaching the improvement would damage the thing, the right to remove yields, and the improvement stays.

Balancing the usufructuary and the owner

Article 579 strikes a fair balance. The usufructuary is free to improve the property for use or pleasure, but he bears the cost, since he gets no indemnity, and he keeps a measure of value by being allowed to retrieve what he added when that can be done without harm. The owner, in turn, is protected against both a bill for unwanted improvements and any damage that removal might cause. For a usufructuary planning improvements, the practical lesson is to prefer additions that can later be taken away cleanly, if he hopes to recover their value.

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 →