If the deed creating a usufruct says nothing about who pays the property taxes, does the usufructuary or the owner pay them?

The title comes first

The statute establishes a clear hierarchy: the rights and obligations of the usufructuary are, in the first instance, whatever the title constituting the usufruct says — the deed, will, or other instrument that created the usufruct. If your deed had specified who bears the property taxes, that provision would control, since the parties' own agreement on the point is given priority.

Silence in the title triggers the Civil Code's default rules

Because your deed says nothing about who pays the property taxes, this falls squarely into the situation the article addresses: in default of such title, or in case it is deficient, the law directs that the provisions contained in the Civil Code's own chapters on usufruct shall be observed. In other words, the deed's silence does not leave the tax question unresolved — it simply means the Code's own default allocation applies instead of a bespoke arrangement.

What this specific article does not itself tell you

This provision establishes the hierarchy — title first, Code as fallback — but it does not itself state, in its own text, which party actually bears the property taxes under that fallback framework. That specific allocation is worked out in the other usufruct provisions this article points to, rather than in this one. Anyone in your situation would need to look at those specific provisions on charges and taxes affecting usufruct property to get the actual answer to who pays, since this article only tells you where to look, not what the answer is.

Why the law prioritizes the title this way

Usufruct is often created voluntarily, by will or by contract, precisely so the person establishing it can tailor the arrangement to their own situation. Giving the title priority respects that intent — if the grantor spelled out who pays which expenses, there is no reason for a generic default rule to override a considered arrangement the parties actually made. The Code steps in as a fallback specifically because most usufructs will not anticipate every possible cost, and leaving genuine gaps unaddressed would make the arrangement unworkable in practice.

"Deficient" covers gaps, not just total silence

The article does not require the title to be completely silent before the Code's default rules apply — it also covers a title that is merely deficient, meaning it addresses some matters but leaves others, like your tax question, unaddressed. A deed that thoroughly covers most aspects of the usufruct but happens to omit the tax question still triggers the fallback rule for that specific gap, rather than being treated as though the whole title controls by implication.

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 →

Related provisions

• Civil Code, Article 565 — The Title Governs First