Short answer. Under Article 609 of the Civil Code, when expropriated property is subject to a usufruct, the owner must either replace it with another thing of the same value and similar conditions, or pay the usufructuary legal interest on the indemnity for the full remaining period of the usufruct — and must provide security if choosing the interest option.
What the law says
Should the thing in usufruct be expropriated for public use, the owner shall be obliged either to replace it with another thing of the same value and of similar conditions, or to pay the usufructuary the legal interest on the amount of the indemnity for the whole period of the usufruct. If the owner chooses the latter alternative, he shall give security for the payment of the interest.
Civil Code, Article 609 — Expropriation of the Thing. Read the full provision →
The owner's two options after expropriation
Article 609 of the Civil Code addresses a situation where the State takes away the very thing the usufructuary is entitled to use and enjoy. The usufructuary has a right to benefit from the property for the agreed period; that right survives the expropriation as an obligation on the owner. The owner must choose between two responses: replace the expropriated thing with another of equal value and comparable conditions, or pay the usufructuary legal interest on the expropriation indemnity for the remainder of the usufruct term. The choice belongs to the owner, not the usufructuary.
Option one: replacement property
If the owner elects to replace the expropriated thing, the substitute must satisfy two standards: it must be of the same value as the original and of similar conditions. Similar conditions means the replacement must be comparable in kind and utility — land replaced with land, a building with a building, agricultural property with agricultural property. The usufructuary's right then attaches to the new property for whatever time remains on the original usufruct. A replacement that is worth less or is of a substantially different character does not satisfy the owner's obligation under Article 609.
Option two: interest on the indemnity
If the owner instead chooses to pay interest rather than provide a replacement, the amount is calculated on the indemnity received from the State for the whole remaining period of the usufruct. The rate is the legal interest rate. Crucially, the owner does not simply hand over a lump sum; the obligation is to pay interest periodically throughout the usufruct period, as though the owner were holding the expropriation proceeds on behalf of the arrangement. To protect the usufructuary, Article 609 requires the owner to furnish security when choosing this option — a guarantee that the interest will actually be paid.
Why security is required for the interest option
The security requirement reflects a practical concern. When the owner receives the expropriation indemnity, the usufructuary has no direct claim against the government — the payment goes to the owner of the property. Without security, the usufructuary would have only an unsecured personal claim against the owner for the periodic interest. If the owner becomes insolvent or dissipates the proceeds, the usufructuary loses the benefit they were entitled to for the remaining years of the usufruct. The security — which may take the form of a bond, mortgage, or other guarantee — ensures that the usufructuary's right survives even the owner's financial difficulties.