Heirs should refrain from interfering in the use of the property as long as the usufruit exists. However, they have the right to protect their interests if the usufruit uses the property inappropriately. The «rights» of nudity could pose problems for children (the ultimate heirs) because, while usufruit is in effect, children have no right or authority over the use or enjoyment of the property. Although it was hereditary to them, it is subject to the usufruit of their mother. They do not have to get involved; Although they naturally have the right to protect their interests, usufruit should abuse the property. But sometimes people forget that usufruit can have an impact on other heirs, in this case children who have inherited the house. But first let`s look at women`s rights as usufruit. Usufruct is usually awarded for a limited period of time. It can be granted to the usufruit or the person who owns a usufruit to look after the property until the death of an owner and the property can be settled if the owner is sick.

Although the usufruit has the right to use the property, it cannot damage, destroy or cede ownership. A usufruit does not have full ownership of the property, because it is not the third right of ownership, abusus, which concerns the right to consumption, destruction or transfer of ownership of the property to someone else. Usufructs are personal servitudes and cannot be registered beyond the life of a person for the benefit of which it was created. Usufructs are usually created for the lifetime of usufruit, but can also be created for a specified period of time. Usufructs may also be subject to conditions that should be provided for in a will. It was agreed between the second and fourth respondents that the property had been sold under all the conditions set out in the transfer agreement. One of the conditions was that the usufruit be in favour of the plaintiffs. The written terms of sale are the only monument to the agreement between the second and fourth respondents. Neither the second nor the fourth decided to grant assurances under oath to refuse worship in the foundation.

The opponent of the first appeal was not present at the auction and could not refute the contents of the sale contract. There is no evidence that any other agreement has been reached between the parties as far as the terms of sale are concerned. The sale of the property without usufruit depends on the proper construction of the contract concluded at the time of the sale under execution. In this case, the opponent of the first appeal relied on a mandate signed by the applicants to argue that she had waived all usufruit benefits. It was argued that the text of the power of attorney indicated that it was waiving some of its rights with respect to usufruit, but that it had not waived all the rights relating to usufruit.