Short answer. Yes. Article 600 does not require the usufructuary to pay the mortgage debt, and if the property is attached or sold judicially to satisfy it, the owner is liable to the usufructuary for whatever the usufructuary loses as a result. The owner, not the usufructuary, bears responsibility for that loss.
What the law says
The usufructuary of a mortgaged immovable shall not be obliged to pay the debt for the security of which the mortgage was constituted.
Civil Code, Article 600 — Mortgaged Property in Usufruct. Read the full provision →
What the law says
Should the immovable be attached or sold judicially for the payment of the debt, the owner shall be liable to the usufructuary for whatever the latter may lose by reason thereof.
Civil Code, Article 600 — Mortgaged Property in Usufruct. Read the full provision →
The usufructuary never had to pay the mortgage debt
Article 600 starts by making clear that the mortgage debt was never your responsibility as usufructuary in the first place. It provides that the usufructuary of a mortgaged immovable shall not be obliged to pay the debt for the security of which the mortgage was constituted. The mortgage was set up by the owner, to secure the owner's own debt, and your usufruct over the property does not make you personally answerable for paying it off, even though the property you have the right to use and enjoy is the collateral securing that debt.
The owner covers whatever the usufructuary loses
Because you were never obligated to pay the debt, the consequences of the property being sold to satisfy it fall on the owner instead. The article continues: Should the immovable be attached or sold judicially for the payment of the debt, the owner shall be liable to the usufructuary for whatever the latter may lose by reason thereof. If the mortgaged property is attached or sold at a judicial sale to pay off the debt, and that costs you your usufruct or otherwise causes you loss, the owner is the one who has to make you whole for it, not you who has to simply absorb the loss.
Why the owner, not the usufructuary, bears this risk
The owner created the mortgage and received whatever benefit came from incurring that debt, while you, as usufructuary, had no part in that arrangement beyond holding a right to use and enjoy the property that the owner had already encumbered. It would be unfair to let the owner's own debt, and the owner's decision to secure it with the very property you have rights over, extinguish or damage your usufruct without any recourse against the person actually responsible for the debt.
What this means if the property is being sold to pay the debt
If you learn that mortgaged property you hold in usufruct is being attached or sold judicially to satisfy the owner's debt, you are not required to step in and pay it off yourself to protect your position. Instead, once that loss materializes, you have a basis under Article 600 to seek compensation from the owner for whatever your usufruct, or your enjoyment of the property, actually cost you as a result.