Short answer. Not freely. Article 1974 lets the depositary change the manner of deposit only when he could reasonably presume you would consent had you known the circumstances — and even then he must first notify you and wait for your decision, unless delay itself would cause danger.
What the law says
The depositary may change the way of the deposit if under the circumstances he may reasonably presume that the depositor would consent to the change if he knew of the facts of the situation.
Civil Code, Article 1974 — Change in the Manner of Deposit. Read the full provision →
What the law says
before the depositary may make such change, he shall notify the depositor thereof and wait for his decision
Civil Code, Article 1974 — Change in the Manner of Deposit. Read the full provision →
What the law says
unless delay would cause danger
Civil Code, Article 1974 — Change in the Manner of Deposit. Read the full provision →
The starting point is that he holds it as received
A deposit is a trust arrangement, not a licence to manage. The depositary's core duty is to keep the thing and return it, in the condition and in the manner in which it was handed over. He is a custodian, not a caretaker with discretion. So the starting point under the law is that he holds your property the way you left it: the same storeroom, the same packing, the same conditions you agreed. Any departure from that has to be justified by the article, because changing how a thing is stored can change the risks it faces and quietly shifts a decision that was yours onto him.
The narrow presumed-consent exception
Article 1974 allows one exception: The depositary may change the way of the deposit if under the circumstances he may reasonably presume that the depositor would consent to the change if he knew of the facts of the situation. The test is your presumed will, not his convenience. It asks what you would have said if the facts had been put to you — a leaking roof, flooding, a pest problem — not what is easier or cheaper for him to arrange. A change he makes because it suits his own operations, or one you would plainly have refused, is not covered, and it leaves him answerable for whatever follows.
He must notify you first, then wait
Even where that presumption holds, the article does not let him act first and explain later. It requires that before the depositary may make such change, he shall notify the depositor thereof and wait for his decision. The sequence is deliberate: tell you, then pause for your answer. The presumed-consent test only decides whether he may raise the change at all; your actual instruction, once he has asked for it, governs. So in the ordinary case a keeper who moves, repacks or re-houses your goods without a word to you has skipped the step the law requires, whatever his reasons, and cannot treat your silence as approval.
The single emergency exception, and what to check
The one situation where he may skip the asking is stated at the end: he need not wait unless delay would cause danger. If pausing for your decision would itself expose the property to loss — a fire, a burst pipe, a warehouse about to be sealed — he may act to protect it and account to you afterwards. That is an emergency measure, not a general convenience. If your goods were moved or handled differently, three questions decide the matter: were you told beforehand, did you agree, and if not, was there a real and immediate danger that made asking impossible. Keep whatever notice you were given.