Short answer. The owner does not get the usufruct cancelled — he gets control of the assets. Article 586 lets him have immovables placed under administration, movables sold and the proceeds invested safely, or, if he prefers, keep the property himself as administrator and hand over the net proceeds.
What the law says
Should the usufructuary fail to give security in the cases in which he is bound to give it, the owner may demand that the immovables be placed under administration, that the movables be sold
Civil Code, Article 586 — If Security Is Not Given. Read the full provision →
The remedy secures the property, it does not forfeit the right
Every measure the article lists is custodial. Land goes under administration, movables are turned into cash and the cash into safe securities, bearer instruments are registered or lodged with a bank. Not one of them takes the usufruct away. The Code is careful about this — the interest on the proceeds of the sale, the income from the securities, and the proceeds of property under administration all belong to the usufructuary. He keeps the enjoyment he was given; what he loses is his grip on the underlying assets, which is precisely what the security was meant to protect.
The owner-as-administrator option
The last part of the article gives the owner an alternative he may find simpler: rather than setting up an outside administration, he may retain the property himself and administer it, until security is given or the usufructuary is excused. It comes with a duty attached. He must deliver the net proceeds to the usufructuary, after deducting whatever is agreed or judicially allowed for the administration. So it is a fiduciary position, not a recovery of the property — an owner who takes this route and then treats the income as his own has simply created a different dispute.
First establish that security was actually owed
The article operates only in the cases in which he is bound to give it, so the threshold question is whether this usufructuary was. Not every usufruct carries the obligation. It can be dispensed with by the person who created the right, and there are situations the law itself excuses. Before demanding anything, read the instrument that created the usufruct: an express waiver of the bond ends the argument, and a demand made where no security was ever required is worse than useless because it puts the owner in the wrong.
What to do in what order
Make the demand in writing and keep proof it was received, since the failure has to be a failure to comply rather than a misunderstanding. Alongside it, prepare an inventory of what the usufruct covers — the measures in this article are asset-by-asset, and land, equipment and instruments of credit are each dealt with differently. Then decide, before invoking anything, which of the article's routes you actually want, because asking for administration and asking to administer the property yourself lead to very different arrangements.