Short answer. No. Article 904 forbids the testator from imposing any burden, encumbrance, condition, or substitution of any kind on the legitime. The legitime is reserved for compulsory heirs free of such restrictions, except in the limited cases the law itself expressly allows.
What the law says
The testator cannot deprive his compulsory heirs of their legitime, except in cases expressly specified by law.
Civil Code, Article 904 — The Legitime Cannot Be Taken Away. Read the full provision →
What the law says
Neither can he impose upon the same any burden, encumbrance, condition, or substitution of any kind whatsoever.
Civil Code, Article 904 — The Legitime Cannot Be Taken Away. Read the full provision →
The legitime is protected from restrictions of any kind
Article 904 protects the legitime on two separate fronts. First, it establishes that "the testator cannot deprive his compulsory heirs of their legitime, except in cases expressly specified by law." Then it goes further, adding that "neither can he impose upon the same any burden, encumbrance, condition, or substitution of any kind whatsoever." Even a testator who has no intention of depriving an heir of the legitime outright cannot attach strings to it either.
What "any kind whatsoever" actually covers
The article's language is deliberately broad, naming several distinct types of restriction — a burden, an encumbrance, a condition, and a substitution — and then closing with "of any kind whatsoever" to make clear the list is not meant to leave loopholes. A testator cannot require an heir to do something before receiving the legitime, cannot attach a lien or obligation to it, and cannot direct that someone else receive it instead if a condition fails. The legitime is meant to pass to the compulsory heir clean of these devices.
The narrow exception the law itself carves out
The prohibition is not absolute in every conceivable sense — the article's first sentence acknowledges deprivation is possible only "in cases expressly specified by law." This means any exception has to come from the law itself, in situations the Code specifically identifies, rather than from whatever conditions or restrictions a testator personally wishes to impose. Absent one of those legally specified situations, the general rule of an unburdened legitime controls.
Why the legitime is treated this way
The legitime exists to guarantee compulsory heirs a share of the estate that does not depend on the testator's discretion or goodwill, precisely because family relationships and inheritance expectations deserve that kind of protection. Allowing testators to attach conditions or burdens to the legitime would let them effectively control or manipulate what is supposed to be a guaranteed, unconditional share, undermining the very purpose the legitime is designed to serve for compulsory heirs like children and, in the appropriate case, a surviving spouse or parents. This is precisely why the article's wording is so sweeping, closing off any creative attempt to dress up a restriction as something other than a forbidden burden.