Short answer. Yes, on petition to the court. Even without giving security, a usufructuary who claims delivery of necessary furniture and a place to live in by virtue of a promise under oath may be granted this by the court after it evaluates the circumstances. The court has discretion; the petition is not automatically granted.
What the law says
If the usufructuary who has not given security claims, by virtue of a promise under oath, the delivery of the furniture necessary for his use, and that he and his family be allowed to live in a house included in the usufruct, the court may grant this petition, after due consideration of the facts of the case.
Civil Code, Article 587 — Delivery of Necessary Furniture. Read the full provision →
The basic rule: no security, no delivery — but with this exception
Ordinarily, a usufructuary who has not given the required security cannot compel the owner to deliver the property. Article 587 creates a specific humanitarian exception: when the usufructuary needs basic necessities — a place to live and furniture to use — the court may step in. This is not an automatic right. The usufructuary must make a formal petition, must promise under oath to use the items only for personal and family use, and the court then weighs the circumstances before deciding. The word "may" is significant — the court exercises genuine discretion.
What can be requested under this provision
Three categories of items fall within this provision. First, furniture necessary for the usufructuary's use — basic household items needed to live. Second, the right to live in the house covered by the usufruct. Third, the statute extends the same rule to "implements, tools and other movable property necessary for an industry or vocation in which he is engaged" — meaning a tradesman or professional who needs their tools to earn a living can also petition for access to those items even before providing security.
The owner's counter-option for items of artistic or sentimental value
The statute recognizes that some items inside the property are not just household furniture — they may carry significant monetary, artistic, or sentimental value that the owner is understandably reluctant to leave in the hands of an unsecured usufructuary. In those cases, the owner may demand that those specific articles be delivered to him instead, upon providing security for payment of the legal interest on their appraised value. This is the owner's way of protecting irreplaceable items while still allowing the usufructuary to access the house and ordinary furnishings.
How courts evaluate these petitions
"Due consideration of the facts of the case" means the court will look at: why the usufructuary has not given security (inability, or refusal?), the nature of the property, the relationship between the parties, and whether granting the petition would genuinely prejudice the naked owner. A surviving spouse with no other home who physically cannot post a bond is in a very different position from someone who simply refuses to comply. The sworn promise functions as a substitute for security — courts take it seriously, and a breach of that promise carries consequences.