Short answer. Yes. Article 609 requires the owner who chooses to pay interest instead of replacing the expropriated thing to give security for those interest payments, protecting the usufructuary for the whole period the usufruct was meant to last. The owner does not have this choice alone without that safeguard attached.
What the law says
If the owner chooses the latter alternative, he shall give security for the payment of the interest.
Civil Code, Article 609 — Expropriation of the Thing. Read the full provision →
Two ways to handle an expropriated usufruct
When the property subject to a usufruct is taken by the government for public use, the owner does not get to simply pocket the resulting indemnity and leave the usufructuary with nothing. Should the thing in usufruct be expropriated for public use, the owner shall be obliged either to replace it with another thing of the same value and of similar conditions, or to pay the usufructuary the legal interest on the amount of the indemnity for the whole period of the usufruct. The owner picks between these two options; the usufructuary does not.
Choosing to pay interest comes with a condition
If the owner decides not to replace the thing and instead pay interest for the rest of the usufruct's term, that choice is not free of obligations. If the owner chooses the latter alternative, he shall give security for the payment of the interest. The security exists because paying interest is a running obligation, stretched over the whole remaining period of the usufruct, and the usufructuary needs some guarantee that those payments will actually keep coming rather than lapse partway through.
Why replacement doesn't carry the same requirement
The security requirement is tied specifically to the interest-payment option. Replacing the expropriated thing with another of the same value and similar conditions restores the usufruct to something the usufructuary can actually possess and enjoy directly, the way the arrangement originally worked. Paying interest instead substitutes a stream of money payments for that direct enjoyment, which is a weaker position for the usufructuary unless it is backed by security, and the article addresses that gap.
What this means for the usufructuary
If you hold a usufruct over property that gets expropriated, and the owner opts to pay interest rather than replace the thing, you are entitled to demand that security be posted for those interest payments before simply accepting the owner's choice. The specific form and amount of security is not spelled out in this article, so that would need to be worked out based on the value of the indemnity and the remaining duration of the usufruct. Until security is actually given, you are not obliged to treat the owner's choice as settled.