Photo from Unsplash | Tierra Mallorca

This article was originally published on June 1, 2022 and has been updated to reflect recent legal developments.

The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.

Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.

AT A GLANCE:

Usufruct gives a right to enjoy the property of another with the obligation of preserving its form and substance, unless the title constituting it or the law otherwise provides.

George Perkins Marsh once remarked in his 1864 book, Man and Nature, “Man has too long forgotten that the earth was given to him for usufruct alone, not for consumption, still less for profligate waste.”

This statement reminds us that not all that we enjoy is ours to consume freely; some rights or properties are only temporarily granted or borrowed.

What is a Usufruct?

Under Article 562 of the Civil Code of the Philippines:

Usufruct gives a right to enjoy the property of another with the obligation of preserving its form and substance, unless the title constituting it or the law otherwise provides.

How is it constituted?

Article 563 of the Civil Code provides that usufruct is constituted by law, by the will of private persons expressed in acts inter vivos or in a last will and testament, and by prescription. 

Article 564 of the Civil Code further states that usufruct may be constituted on the whole or a part of the fruits of the thing, in favor of one more persons, simultaneously or successively, and in every case from or to a certain day, purely or conditionally. It may also be constituted on a right, provided it is not strictly personal or intransmissible.

For a better appreciation, let us take the case of Mercedes Moralidad vs. Spouses Diosdado Pernes and Arlene Pernes, G.R. No. 152809, August 3, 2006.

Mercedes Moralidad, a single professional working abroad, would usually stay in the house of her niece, Arlene, whenever she comes home to the Philippines. Back in America, Mercedes received news from Arlene that that Mandug at the outskirts of Davao City was infested by NPA rebels and many women and children were victims of crossfire between government troops and the insurgents. 

Shocked and saddened about this development, she immediately sent money to Araceli, Arlene’s older sister, with instructions to look for a lot in Davao City where Arlene and her family could transfer and settle down. Hence, the subject parcel of land in this case. 

Here, it is clear that Mercedes acquired the lot initially for the purpose of letting Arlene to move to Davao City proper but later she wanted the property to be also available to any of her kins wishing to live and settle in Davao City. This intention of Mercedes was made known in a document that she executed.

Following the retirement of Mercedes, she came back to the Philippines and stayed with the Respondents’ on the house they built on the lot of Mercedes. In the course of time, their relations turned sour because members of the Pernes family were impervious to her suggestions and attempts to change certain practices concerning matters of health and sanitation within their compound.

May Mercedes recover the land? Is there a case of usufruct in this case?

The Supreme Court says: Yes, to both questions.

The Court is inclined to agree with the CA that what was constituted between the parties herein is one of usufruct over a piece of land, with the petitioner being the owner of the property upon whom the naked title thereto remained and the respondents being two (2) among other unnamed usufructuaries who were simply referred to as petitioner’s kin. The Court, however, cannot go along with the CA’s holding that the action for unlawful detainer must be dismissed on grounds of prematurity. 

Usufruct, in essence, is nothing else but simply allowing one to enjoy another’s property. It is also defined as the right to enjoy the property of another temporarily, including both the right to use and the right to fruits, with the owner retaining the right to dispose or the power to alienate the same.

It is undisputed that petitioner, in a document dated July 21, 1986, supra, made known her intention to give respondents and her other kins the right to use and to enjoy the fruits of her property. The established facts undoubtedly gave respondents not only the right to use the property but also granted them, among the petitioner’s other kins, the right to enjoy the fruits thereof. We have no quarrel, therefore, with the CA’s ruling that usufruct was constituted between petitioner and respondents. It is thus pointless to discuss why there was no lease contract between the parties. 

Hence, the next question of the Court is whether the existing usufruct may be deemed to have been extinguished or terminated. If the question is resolved in the affirmative, then the respondents’ right to possession, proceeding as it did from their right of usufruct, likewise ceased. 

The term or period of the usufruct originally specified provides only one of the bases for the right of a usufructuary to hold and retain possession of the thing given in usufruct. There are other modes or instances whereby the usufruct shall be considered terminated or extinguished. 

The document executed by the petitioner dated July 21, 1986 constitutes the title creating, and sets forth the conditions of, the usufruct. In fine, the occurrence of any of the following: the loss of the atmosphere of cooperation, the bickering or the cessation of harmonious relationship between/among kin constitutes a resolutory condition which, by express wish of the petitioner, extinguishes the usufruct. 

The Court ruled that the continuing animosity between the petitioner and the Pernes family and the violence and humiliation she was made to endure, despite her advanced age and frail condition, are enough factual bases to consider the usufruct as having been terminated. 

To reiterate, the relationship between the petitioner and respondents respecting the property in question is one of owner and usufructuary. 

RELATED ARTICLES:

• RIGHTS OF A USUFRUCTUARY
• OBLIGATIONS OF THE USUFRUCTUARY
• CONTINUING ANIMOSITY AS A GROUND FOR TERMINATING A USUFRUCT

Click here to subscribe to our newsletter

Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 09175772207/ 09778050020.

All rights reserved.