USUS and HABITATION. — Usus usufruct (v.), and the right of habitation is a particular form of usus whose object is a house. Usus differs from usufruct in the limitation of enjoyment and in its attachment to the person or persons to such an extent that it is in every case non-transferable.
Usufruct, in fact, comprises two rights, indicated by the two terms uti and frui: usus stops at the first and, at least in the Roman sources, did not include the right to enjoy the fruits of the thing that constituted the object of the usus: nudus usus id est sine fructu (D. 7, 8, 1, 1). It was only through the intermediate law that, in modern codes, the right of usus was extended to the fruits of the thing (cf. Italian Civil Code, art. 1021).
The object of usus may be any thing that is in commerce. The constitution of the right of usus may take place in various ways: by contract, by testament, or by prescription, in the forms required for usufruct; but it cannot arise by law except exceptionally (in the case of the widow who has not separated from her husband through her own fault and who enjoys the right of habitation in her husband’s estate for one year, ibid., art. 198). Given the substantial identity existing between usus and usufruct, many of the rules relating to the latter institution also apply, insofar as compatible, to the former (ibid., art. 1026); this is likewise true with regard to extinction (ibid., art. 1026). The rights and obligations are also almost the same as those of the usufructuary.
As regards obligations, the user is therefore required, like the usufructuary, after the preparation of an inventory, to provide guarantees for preservation and restitution, and to undertake to use the property tamquam bonus pater familias; and to contribute, in proportion to his enjoyment, with the owner toward ordinary repairs, annual charges, cultivation expenses, and so forth (ibid., art. 1025). The user may not alienate the fruits that exceed his own needs; and he is also bound, in conscience, for damage caused to the property through his own fault. As regards the user’s rights, whoever has the right of usus over a thing may use it and gather its fruits, if it is productive, to the extent required by his social condition (ibid., art. 1021). In both usus and habitation, the right also extends to the family of the person who possesses it (arts. 1021–22). Included among the family are children, whether born or adopted, and those who have entered it by affiliation, even after the right of habitation began, although, at the beginning of the acquisition of the right, the person enjoying it may not even have been married. Also included are persons supported by the holder of the right or who render some service to him or to his family (art. 1023).
In ancient times, the right of habitation also extended to the enjoyment of a certain usufruct, inasmuch as the person who had the right to inhabit could also sublet the whole or part of II. Modern law, however, has removed the power to transfer the right of usus or habitation or to sublet, because these are personal rights (art. 1026). But, if the owner does not object, a mortgage may be created over these rights. Habitation must be constituted in writing, and the right may likewise be renounced in writing. Agreements concerning this right must also be concluded in writing. When habitation is acquired, an inventory must also be provided. The right of habitation also entails the obligation to inhabit the house without causing any damage other than that strictly connected with the wear and tear of usus. The person who has the right of habitation is likewise required to carry out ordinary repairs and to pay the taxes pertaining to habitation. The same may be said of usus (art. 1025). The civil laws concerning usus and habitation are binding in conscience, together with usufruct (v.).
For a habitation to be worthy, healthy, and suitable for a particular social class, it must correspond not only to the art and technique of construction, so that it meets genuine needs, but also to the requirements of public health and the dignity of those who live there, and above all to the practical requirements of morality, so that a family is not forced to live in a place that is too confined, in conditions of promiscuity that are not only immoral but also unreasonable.