Short answer. Yes. A usufructuary must notify the owner of any act of a third person he knows about that may be prejudicial to the rights of ownership. If he stays silent, the Civil Code makes him answerable for the resulting damages as if he had caused them himself.
What the law says
The usufructuary shall be obliged to notify the owner of any act of a third person, of which he may have knowledge, that may be prejudicial to the rights of ownership
Civil Code, Article 601 — Duty to Notify the Owner. Read the full provision →
Why the law puts this duty on the usufructuary
A usufruct splits a property in two. The usufructuary has possession, use and the fruits; the owner keeps the naked ownership but is usually nowhere near the property. That gap is the whole reason for this rule. The person on the ground sees the encroaching fence, the squatter putting up a shanty, the neighbour claiming a right of way, the notice of tax delinquency or the survey team on the boundary. The owner may learn of none of it until a possessory right has hardened. The Code therefore turns what would otherwise be a courtesy into a legal obligation to speak up.
What has to be reported
The trigger is broad. It covers any act of a third person that may be prejudicial to the rights of ownership, and it operates on what the usufructuary actually knows. It is not limited to acts already causing loss — the wording reaches acts that may be prejudicial, so a claim being asserted, an adverse entry, or construction creeping over the line all qualify even before harm crystallises. Two limits are worth noting. The duty concerns acts of third persons, not the usufructuary's own conduct, which is governed by his separate obligations of care. And it is a duty to inform, not a duty to litigate on the owner's behalf.
The price of staying silent
The sanction is deliberately severe. A usufructuary who fails to give notice is liable for damages as if they had been caused through his own fault. He does not escape by pointing out that it was the intruder, not he, who did the damage. Silence is treated as the equivalent of the act. In practice the exposure is measured by what the owner lost because he was not warned in time — a right that could have been protected by timely objection, a prescriptive period that ran, an encroachment that became far more expensive to remove. This is why notice should be prompt and in writing, with a copy kept.
How to comply in practice
Send written notice to the owner at his last known address as soon as you learn of the act, describe what you observed and when, and keep proof of sending. Photographs and dated records help both of you. The duty runs for as long as the usufruct lasts, and it applies whether the usufruct came from a will, a contract or the law itself. Notifying the owner does not stop you from protecting your own possession, which is a separate right. Nor does it transfer the problem entirely: an owner who is warned and does nothing bears the consequences of his own inaction. This is general information, not advice on a specific property.
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.
- National Housing Authority vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 148830, April 13, 2005 — read the decision on LawPhil →