Short answer. Yes. Article 601 obliges a usufructuary who knows of a third person's act that may prejudice the owner's rights to notify the owner. Failing to do so makes the usufructuary liable for the resulting damages, as if the usufructuary had caused them through their own fault.
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, and he shall be liable should he not do so, for damages, as if they had been caused through his own fault.
Civil Code, Article 601 — Duty to Notify the Owner. Read the full provision →
Notice is a positive obligation, not just good practice
Article 601 places a clear duty on the usufructuary: "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." Because a usufructuary is in possession and actively using the property, they are often the first — and sometimes the only — person positioned to notice when a third party is doing something that threatens the owner's underlying rights, and the law makes acting on that knowledge a legal duty rather than a courtesy.
The duty is limited to what the usufructuary actually knows
The obligation attaches to acts "of which he may have knowledge" — the usufructuary is not expected to actively investigate or uncover threats they have no awareness of, but once they do know about a third person's act that could prejudice the owner's rights, silence is no longer an option. The trigger is actual knowledge of a prejudicial act, not a general duty of surveillance over the property.
Failing to notify makes the usufructuary personally liable
The consequence of ignoring this duty is significant. The article states the usufructuary "shall be liable should he not do so, for damages, as if they had been caused through his own fault." This means a usufructuary who knew about a threatening act and said nothing can be held responsible for the resulting damage to the owner's rights in the same way as if the usufructuary had personally caused that harm, even though the actual wrongdoing was committed by the third person, not the usufructuary.
Why the law imposes this on the usufructuary specifically
The usufructuary's day-to-day presence on and use of the property puts them in the best position to notice encroachments, adverse claims, or other threats to the owner's title before they cause lasting harm. By tying liability to a failure to notify, Article 601 gives the usufructuary a strong incentive to keep the owner informed, ensuring that the owner — who may not be regularly present on the property — is not left in the dark about developments that could jeopardize their ownership.
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 →