Short answer. Only with both of their consent. Article 690 says that where the naked ownership of land belongs to one person and the beneficial ownership to another, no perpetual voluntary easement may be established on it without the consent of both owners. Neither the naked owner nor the usufructuary can do it alone.
What the law says
no perpetual voluntary easement may be established thereon without the consent of both owners
Civil Code, Article 690 — Perpetual Easement Needs Both Owners. Read the full provision →
Both interests must agree
Article 690 addresses land whose ownership is split between two people — one holding the naked title and the other the beneficial use. In that setting it lays down a clear condition: Whenever the naked ownership of a tenement or piece of land belongs to one person and the beneficial ownership to another, no perpetual voluntary easement may be established thereon without the consent of both owners. A perpetual voluntary easement — a permanent burden created by agreement, such as a lasting right of way — cannot be imposed on the land unless both the naked owner and the beneficial owner agree. One signature is not enough; the law requires the concurrence of both interests.
Why the naked owner alone cannot bind it
A naked owner holds title but, during the usufruct, does not enjoy the use of the property; that enjoyment belongs to the beneficial owner. If the naked owner could unilaterally saddle the land with a permanent easement, he would be diminishing rights he is not currently exercising and impairing the beneficial owner's enjoyment. A perpetual easement, moreover, outlasts the usufruct and burdens the property forever. Because the consequence is permanent and reaches into the beneficial owner's present rights, the law will not let the titleholder impose it by himself. The permanence of the burden is precisely what makes dual consent essential.
Why the usufructuary alone cannot either
The beneficial owner's interest is, by nature, temporary — it ends at some point, returning full ownership to the naked owner. Allowing that holder to create a permanent easement would let a temporary right generate a forever burden on someone else's land, binding the naked owner long after the beneficial interest is gone. That would be unfair to the person who holds the underlying title. So the beneficial owner cannot unilaterally establish a perpetual voluntary easement either. Article 690's rule cuts in both directions: because the easement is permanent, it needs the agreement of the party whose interest is temporary and the party who holds the lasting title.
The limits of this rule
Article 690 speaks specifically to a perpetual voluntary easement on land held in split ownership. It does not address every possible burden — arrangements that are not perpetual, or easements arising by law rather than by agreement, are governed by other rules. Nor does it prevent an easement from being created at all; it simply requires that both the naked and the beneficial owners consent when the easement is to be permanent. The practical takeaway is that if such an easement is proposed on property under usufruct, the agreement of both owners is indispensable, and one acting without the other cannot validly establish it.