Short answer. No. Article 610 says a usufruct is not extinguished by bad use of the thing. What the owner may demand, where the abuse causes considerable injury, is delivery of the property to himself — but he must then pay the usufructuary the net proceeds annually, after expenses and his administration allowance.
What the law says
A usufruct is not extinguished by bad use of the thing in usufruct; but if the abuse should cause considerable injury to the owner, the latter may demand that the thing be delivered to him, binding himself to pay annually to the usufructuary the net proceeds of the same, after deducting the expenses and the compensation which may be allowed him for its administration.
Civil Code, Article 610 — Abuse Does Not Automatically End It. Read the full provision →
Possession is separated from the right, not the right from its holder
The remedy is carefully limited. The owner takes the thing back into his hands and manages it; the usufructuary stops handling the property but keeps the benefit of it, receiving the net proceeds each year. Nothing is forfeited. The point is to stop the damage, not to punish the abuse, and the Code plainly regards extinguishing a granted right as too heavy a consequence for mismanaging it. An owner hoping this article will free his property of the usufruct will be disappointed — it changes who holds the keys, and very little else.
"Considerable injury" is the threshold
Bad use alone is expressly not enough; the first clause says so. The owner must show that the abuse has caused considerable injury to him, which means real and substantial harm to the property or its value rather than a difference of opinion about how it should be run. Neglecting ordinary maintenance, using the property in a way the owner dislikes, or running it less profitably than the owner would are complaints about judgment. Structural damage, stripping, waste of the substance, or conduct exposing the property to loss is what the article is aimed at.
The obligation the owner takes on
Invoking this is not free. From the moment the property is delivered to him, he is an administrator with duties: to run it, to account, and to pay over the net proceeds annually. He may deduct the expenses and the compensation allowed him for administering it, but he cannot simply enjoy the property himself. An owner who takes back a productive property and lets it sit idle has converted himself from complainant into the person now failing the usufructuary, so the remedy suits an owner who is prepared to manage and to keep books.
Document the deterioration, then make a demand
Since the case is about considerable injury, it is proved by comparison — the inventory or condition report made when the usufruct began against the property's state now, with photographs and, where the harm is structural, an assessment from someone qualified to describe it. A written demand identifying the specific abuse and requiring it to stop is worth making first, both because it may work and because continued conduct after notice is what makes an injury look deliberate rather than accidental.