Short answer. Yes, if the appeal is genuinely frivolous or dilatory. Article 1674 extends the remedy in Article 539's second paragraph to ejectment appeals, letting the higher court act against the lessee once satisfied his appeal is frivolous or dilatory, or that the lessor's own appeal is prima facie meritorious.
What the law says
In ejectment cases where an appeal is taken the remedy granted in article 539, second paragraph, shall also apply, if the higher court is satisfied that the lessee's appeal is frivolous or dilatory, or that the lessor's appeal is prima facie meritorious.
Civil Code, Article 1674 — Ejectment Appeals. Read the full provision →
What the law says
The period of ten days referred to in said article shall be counted from the time the appeal is perfected.
Civil Code, Article 1674 — Ejectment Appeals. Read the full provision →
The remedy that carries over into ejectment appeals
Article 1674 borrows a remedy built for a different situation and applies it to ejectment cases on appeal. It states: in ejectment cases where an appeal is taken the remedy granted in article 539, second paragraph, shall also apply. That remedy, described in Article 539, lets a possessor secure a court order restoring or protecting possession without waiting for a case to run its full course. Article 1674 makes this same tool available in an ejectment appeal, rather than leaving the lessor to simply wait out the appeal while the tenant remains on the property.
The two triggers that make the remedy available
The remedy does not apply automatically to every appeal in an ejectment case. Article 1674 requires the higher court to be satisfied of one of two things: "that the lessee's appeal is frivolous or dilatory, or that the lessor's appeal is prima facie meritorious." If the tenant's appeal genuinely has no serious substance and was filed mainly to buy time, or if the lessor's own appeal on its face has real merit, either condition is enough for the court to grant the remedy while the appeal is still pending.
The underlying remedy borrowed from Article 539
Article 539's second paragraph, the provision Article 1674 incorporates, allows a possessor to secure, on motion, a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to restore him in his possession, with the court required to decide that motion within thirty days. Applied to your situation, this is the kind of order that lets the lessor be restored to or maintained in possession despite the appeal, rather than the appeal itself operating as an automatic shield that keeps the tenant in place indefinitely.
The ten-day period runs from perfection of the appeal
Article 1674 also adjusts the timing rule from Article 539 to fit the appeal context: the period of ten days referred to in said article shall be counted from the time the appeal is perfected. So rather than counting from the filing of the original complaint, as in an ordinary forcible entry case, the ten-day window for seeking this remedy in an ejectment appeal starts once the appeal has actually been perfected. Acting promptly once the appeal reaches that stage matters, since the timing requirement is tied specifically to that event.