Short answer. Yes. Article 603 lists merger of the usufruct and ownership in the same person as one of the ways a usufruct is extinguished. Once the usufructuary also becomes the owner, for example by buying the property or inheriting it, the two rights fuse into full ownership and the separate usufruct disappears.
What the law says
By merger of the usufruct and ownership in the same person
Civil Code, Article 603 — How Usufruct Is Extinguished. Read the full provision →
Merger dissolves the usufruct into ownership
Article 603 lists several ways a usufruct can end, and merger is one of them: By merger of the usufruct and ownership in the same person. A usufruct exists because ownership has been split into two separate rights held by two different people, the bare owner and the usufructuary who enjoys the fruits and use of the thing. When one person comes to hold both rights at once, there is no longer a split to maintain. The usufruct is absorbed into full ownership, and the person now owns the property outright, free of the usufruct that used to burden it.
How merger typically happens
Merger occurs whenever the usufructuary acquires the naked ownership, or the owner acquires the usufruct, through any lawful means, such as purchase, donation, or succession. If a usufructuary buys the bare owner's interest in the same property, or inherits it upon the owner's death, the usufructuary now stands in both positions at once. The law does not require any special declaration for merger to take effect; it happens automatically the moment the same person genuinely holds both the usufruct and the ownership over the identical property.
Why the law treats merger as an ending point
A usufruct is meaningful only as a limit on someone else's ownership. Its whole function is to divide the benefits of property between the person who owns it and the person who uses and enjoys it. Once ownership and usufruct rest in a single person, keeping the usufruct alive as a distinct right would serve no purpose, since nobody remains on the other side of that division to be bound by it. Extinguishing the usufruct on merger simply recognizes that the underlying reason for the split no longer exists.
What this means for anyone dealing with the property
Once merger happens, any annotation of the usufruct on the property's title reflects a right that has already ended in substance, even if the paperwork has not yet caught up. The now-sole owner holds the property free of that particular encumbrance and can deal with it accordingly. Anyone relying on the usufruct as still burdening the property, such as a lender or a buyer, should confirm whether the usufructuary and the owner are, in fact, still two different people before assuming the usufruct still stands.
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.
- Quezon City Government vs. Manila Seedling Bank Foundation Inc, G.R. No. 208788, July 23, 2024 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Juan Perez, et al. vs. Court of Appeals & Luis Crisostomo, et al, G.R. No. 107737, October 1, 1999 — read the decision on LawPhil →