Short answer. Two people are excused: a donor who kept the usufruct of the property he gave away, and parents who are usufructuaries of their children's property. The parents' exemption disappears the moment they contract a second marriage, and from then on security may be required of them like anyone else.
What the law says
The provisions of No. 2 of the preceding article shall not apply to the donor who has reserved the usufruct of the property donated, or to the parents who are usufructuaries of their children's property, except when the parents contract a second marriage.
Civil Code, Article 584 — Who Is Excused From Security. Read the full provision →
Why security is normally required at all
A usufructuary gets to use and take the fruits of something that belongs to someone else, and must hand it back when the usufruct ends. Article 583 of the Civil Code therefore requires him, before entering upon the enjoyment, to make an inventory and to give security — a bond or equivalent guarantee that the owner will be made whole if the property is wasted, damaged or not returned. Article 584 carves two people out of that security requirement. It does not excuse them from the inventory; the exemption is aimed at the second requirement only, which is why the article speaks of No. 2 of the preceding article.
The donor who kept the usufruct
When an owner donates property but reserves the usufruct for himself, the law sees no sense in asking him to post a bond. He is the one who gave the property away in the first place, and he retained only what he never parted with. Requiring security would let the donee — who received the thing for nothing — impose a cost on the donor's generosity. This exemption belongs to the donor personally. It does not travel to a buyer or an heir who later acquires that usufruct, because the reason for the indulgence is the donor's own act of giving.
Parents, and what a second marriage changes
Parents who hold a usufruct over their children's property are likewise excused, because the law assumes a parent will not despoil his own child's patrimony. That assumption is expressly withdrawn when the parent contracts a second marriage. The Civil Code treats the entry of a new spouse and possibly a new set of children as a real risk of competing interests, and so the ordinary security requirement revives. The exception is worded around remarriage, not around the parent's character — it operates by the fact of the marriage, without anyone having to prove bad faith.
The limits of the exemption
Being excused from security does not license neglect. The usufructuary still owes ordinary care, still bears ordinary repairs, and still answers for damage caused by his fault. The person who created the usufruct may also require security by express stipulation, since these Civil Code rules apply where the deed or will is silent. And where security is required but not given, the owner has separate remedies over administration of the property rather than an automatic forfeiture. This is general legal information; whether an exemption applies depends on the instrument and the family circumstances.
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 584 — Who Is Excused From Security
- Civil Code, Article 583 — Inventory and Security Come First