Short answer. No. Article 1672 says that in an implied new lease, the obligations contracted by a third person for the security of the principal contract shall cease with respect to the new lease. A guarantor or surety who secured your original lease is released; the security does not automatically carry over into the renewed one.
What the law says
In case of an implied new lease, the obligations contracted by a third person for the security of the principal contract shall cease with respect to the new lease.
Civil Code, Article 1672 — Sureties in an Implied New Lease. Read the full provision →
The security dies with the old lease
Article 1672 protects the person who backed someone else's lease: in case of an implied new lease, the obligations contracted by a third person for the security of the principal contract shall cease with respect to the new lease. When a lease ends and the tenant stays on with the landlord's acquiescence, the law may treat it as an implied new lease on the old terms. But the guarantee is not part of that revival. A guarantor, surety or other third person who secured the original lease is discharged as to the new one. Their promise attached to the lease they agreed to back, not to a later, different one.
Why the guarantor is let go
The reason is basic fairness to someone who took on another's risk. A guarantor agreed to answer for a specific obligation, the original lease, for its agreed term. An implied new lease, though on the same terms, is a distinct contract that arises later, from the tenant's continued stay and the landlord's tolerance, not from anything the guarantor consented to. To hold the guarantor to a renewal he never agreed to would expand his liability behind his back and for a period he never accepted. The law refuses to do that, and instead ends the third person's security when the original lease ends.
What the release does not touch
The discharge is forward-looking and specific. It frees the guarantor from the new lease; it does not erase liability that had already accrued under the original lease before it expired. If the tenant left unpaid rent or unrepaired damage from the original term, the guarantee for that period is not wiped out by Article 1672. The article also speaks to security given by a third person. It does not, by itself, address every arrangement the parties themselves might make, and a guarantor who separately and knowingly agrees to secure the renewal can of course be bound, because then the consent the law was protecting is actually present.
What this means for the parties
For a landlord, the lesson is not to assume the original guarantee still covers a tenant who has simply held over into an implied renewal; if security matters, obtain a fresh guarantee for the new arrangement rather than relying on the old one. For a guarantor, it is reassurance that your exposure does not silently roll forward each time a lease lapses into an implied renewal. And for a tenant, it means the comfort a guarantor gave the landlord may quietly disappear on holdover, which can prompt the landlord to demand a new lease or new security. Putting any continued guarantee in writing removes the doubt.