Short answer. No. Under Civil Code Article 1022, when a share lapses and no substitute was named and accretion does not apply, it goes to the testator's legal heirs, but they receive it with the same charges and obligations the original heir would have carried, not free and clear.
What the law says
the vacant portion of the instituted heirs, if no substitute has been designated, shall pass to the legal heirs of the testator, who shall receive it with the same charges and obligations
Civil Code, Article 1022 — When Accretion Does Not Apply. Read the full provision →
What Article 1022 covers
Article 1022 deals with a lapsed share in a will, one left vacant because the named heir predeceased the testator, repudiated the inheritance, or was disqualified, in a case where the testator designated no substitute and the requisites for accretion among the other heirs are not met. Rather than let the share simply vanish, the law sends it to a defined destination: the vacant portion of the instituted heirs, if no substitute has been designated, shall pass to the legal heirs of the testator, who shall receive it with the same charges and obligations. Those legal heirs are the same relatives who would inherit intestate, the people the law recognizes as heirs when there is no will covering the property at all.
Why the charges travel with the share
The phrase with the same charges and obligations is the operative part of the rule. A testator can burden an inheritance with a condition, a legacy payable out of it, a usufruct in someone else's favor, or a duty to deliver something to a third person. When the original heir's share never took effect and passes instead to the legal heirs, those same burdens travel with it. The legal heirs do not receive a cleaner version of the gift than the one the testator actually made; they step into the position the named heir would have occupied, obligations included. This protects anyone the testator meant to benefit through that share, such as a legatee or the person owed performance of a condition, from losing their claim merely because the person originally named to carry it dropped out of the picture.
When this rule does not apply
This default only operates when accretion does not take effect, for example when the testator instituted heirs to separate, distinct portions rather than jointly to the same portion. Where accretion does apply, the vacant share instead enlarges the shares of the remaining co-heirs directly, and it still carries the same charges. If the testator did name a substitute, that substitute takes the share on whatever terms the will provides, and Article 1022 is not the rule in play at all. Whether a given case falls under accretion, substitution, or this default rule for legal heirs depends on exactly how the will is worded and who else was named in it, so the actual clauses of the will control more than any general description of the share.