Short answer. Yes. A usufructuary who leases out or transfers his right of usufruct remains answerable to the owner for damage the property suffers through the fault or negligence of the person who takes his place. Handing the property to someone else does not hand over the responsibility.
What the law says
A usufructuary who alienates or leases his right of usufruct shall answer for any damage which the things in usufruct may suffer through the fault or negligence of the person who substitutes him.
Civil Code, Article 590 — Liability for a Transferee's Fault. Read the full provision →
The right can be passed on; the duty cannot
A usufructuary is generally free to lease the property or transfer his right to another — the usufruct is his to use, and the law does not trap him into personal occupation. What he cannot do is shed the obligations that came with it. The owner dealt with the usufructuary, not with the stranger the usufructuary later brought in, so the owner keeps a single, identifiable person to answer to. The practical effect is that the usufructuary carries the risk of his own choice of tenant or transferee: if that person damages the property through fault or negligence, the loss lands on the usufructuary.
What kind of damage is covered
The rule speaks of damage caused by fault or negligence. It does not turn the usufructuary into an insurer of the property. Normal wear and tear from the proper use of the thing is expected and is not damage in this sense — a usufructuary is entitled to use the property, and use consumes it slowly. Deterioration from causes nobody controls, such as a typhoon or an earthquake, is likewise outside the provision, because no fault of the substitute produced it. What is covered is careless or improper handling: alterations that were not permitted, neglect of maintenance the occupant owed, misuse that no reasonable occupant would commit.
Recovering from the person who actually caused it
Being answerable to the owner does not mean absorbing the loss permanently. The usufructuary who pays can pursue his tenant or transferee under their own contract and under the general rules on negligence — the article settles who the owner may look to first, not who ultimately bears the cost. That is why the terms of the lease matter so much: a clear inventory of the property's condition at the start, an express allocation of repair duties, a security deposit and, where the property is valuable, insurance are what turn a theoretical right of recovery into a practical one.
The limits, and what to do
This provision assumes a validly constituted usufruct and does not override its own terms: the instrument creating the usufruct may prohibit leasing or transfer altogether, and a usufructuary who ignores that prohibition faces consequences beyond mere liability for damage. The usufructuary also remains bound by his general duties to preserve the property and to make the ordinary repairs its use requires. When the usufruct ends, the property must be returned in the condition the law expects, and unexplained deterioration is where disputes usually start. Owners and usufructuaries facing a damage claim should have the instrument and the lease read together before positions harden.