<![endif]-->

**What is the difference between usufruct and bare ownership?**

Private property is one of the pillars that sustain most societies based on the rule of law. The property is inalienable and can only be intervened or subjected to forced sale, when it is fully demonstrated that there is a superior social interest.

In legal terms, the owner is awarded the rights of use, enjoyment, enjoyment and disposition of the property he owns. However, there are situations and jurisprudential provisions that allow these rights to be granted separately; hence the usufruct and bare ownership may be separated.

The unfolding of the bare property

Such is the case of the concession to a third party of the property as a value or asset - also called bare property -, preserving for itself the use, enjoyment and enjoyment of the thing in question. There are circumstances in which it is convenient for individuals to adopt this legal figure, and the most common one serves as a contractual framework to obtain income or income in return.

The essential differences between the two terms are based on the fact that the bare owner can enter the value of the negotiated thing in its assets, but without being able to dispose of, transfer and enjoy it until the agreed term of the usufruct expires.

[www.skymarketing.com.pk](https://www.skymarketing.com.pk/) strives to be Pakistan's biggest real estate developer ever, guaranteeing the highest international standards, prompt execution, and lifetime customer loyalty. With projects like [blue world city Islamabad](https://www.skymarketing.com.pk/rawalpindi/blue-world-city/)

For its part, the usufructuary can make use, enjoy and enjoy the property despite the fact that it no longer appears within their fortune or heritage assets. This is committed to keeping the property in perfect condition and honoring all the commitments that are generated by concept of coexistence in the community, for the agreed term.

Negotiation on bare property

Depending on the terms of the contract that separates the usufruct from the bare property, the usufructuary can even thrive on its condition, being able to sublet or fully lease the apartment - in the case of a home - and even assign the usufruct to someone more.

These contracts can be established for a period of time or for life, in which case the bare owner obtains full ownership after the death of the original owner.

This type of negotiation allows life annuity contracts to be concluded between two or more people. In many cases, these are senior citizens whose main –even only- assets is a home and they do not receive a pension, or they receive one that is not enough to cover ordinary monthly expenses.

## Solving a problem for the elderly

As they do not have liquid savings, these people are left with the option of offering the bare ownership of their property and obtaining in exchange a monthly rent –or with the agreed periodicity– to solve the economic problem.

Of course, the amounts that they can obtain as income will be directly linked to the market value of the property and the term of the usufruct.

Another influencing factor is the gender of the owner who transfers the bare property, since the life expectancy of men is lower than that of women, and if it is a life annuity, in one case the disbursements may be greater than in another.

Investing in bare property can be a good alternative to traditional real estate investments, since it does not require initial fees to enter and in these underlies the possibility of acquiring the property for a fraction of the market value, depending on the negotiated term.

In no case can it be considered a short or medium-term investment because the recovery of the investment can exceed 15 years, but it is a way to attach a fixed asset to the personal balance without having to make significant outlays. This can leverage other related business opportunities.

Obligations fall on those involved in this type of negotiations that, if not fulfilled, can cause serious penalties. If the bare owner does not comply with the commitment to deliver the rent in a timely manner, he could lose the bare property, returning it to its original owner, again consolidating full ownership of the home or thing negotiated.

But likewise, if it were to be verified that there are obvious deteriorations that threaten the value of the negotiated property or prolonged delays in the payments of its legal obligations, the joint owner could claim the end of the usufruct, the full property prematurely and demand the eviction.

In any case, considering all the current difficulties that tend to worsen in the public pension system, investing in properties in this way is a way of obtaining future income that will compensate for the probable deficit in our retirement stage.