Short answer. They may choose. Article 911 gives the compulsory heirs an option where a devise consists of a usufruct or life annuity worth more than the disposable portion: comply with the will as written, or hand the beneficiary outright the part of the inheritance the testator could freely dispose of.
What the law says
the compulsory heirs may choose between complying with the testamentary provision and delivering to the devisee or legatee the part of the inheritance of which the testator could freely dispose
Civil Code, Article 911 — Order Of Reduction. Read the full provision →
Why a usufruct gets its own rule
An ordinary excessive legacy can simply be trimmed — give the legatee less money, or a smaller share of the land. A usufruct cannot be handled that way with any confidence, because its value depends on how long the beneficiary lives. A lifetime right to occupy a house may prove modest if the holder dies in two years and ruinous if he lives another thirty, and the compulsory heirs would meanwhile hold naked ownership of property they cannot use. The Code's answer is not to value the imponderable but to give the heirs a way out of it.
The two branches of the choice
The first is to comply — let the usufruct run as the will directs and accept the encumbrance on the property. Heirs take this branch when the burdened property is one they want to keep in the family, or when the beneficiary is elderly and the right is likely to be short. The second is to deliver outright the part of the inheritance of which the testator could freely dispose. That ends the arrangement: the beneficiary receives full ownership of the free portion instead of a lifetime right over more, and the heirs hold the rest clear of any burden.
Whose choice it is
The election belongs to the compulsory heirs, not to the devisee and not to the executor, and the devisee cannot insist on the branch that suits him better. What the article does not settle is how heirs who disagree among themselves are to decide, which is where these matters usually stall — one child wants the property unencumbered, another would rather keep the whole thing intact and wait the usufruct out. In practice it is resolved in the settlement proceeding, and it needs to be resolved before the property is distributed rather than after.
Work out the numbers before electing
The threshold question is whether the usufruct really is worth more than the disposable portion, since if it is not, the option never arises and the will simply stands. That means a valuation of the burdened property, a realistic figure for what the use of it is worth annually, and the beneficiary's age. Set those against the value of the free portion. Heirs often assume a lifetime right is the more expensive outcome and elect to buy it out, when the arithmetic on a short expected term points the other way.
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.
- Ricky Q. Quilala vs. Gliceria Alcantara, et al, G.R. No. 132681, December 3, 2001 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 911 — Order Of Reduction
- Civil Code, Article 907 — Reduction Of Inofficious Dispositions