Short answer. No. Under Article 548, a good-faith possessor may remove ornaments only if the removal causes no injury to the property and the successor in possession does not prefer to refund the amount spent. If the successor chooses to pay, the original possessor must leave the ornaments behind and accept the reimbursement.
What the law says
he may remove the ornaments with which he has embellished the principal thing if it suffers no injury thereby, and if his successor in the possession does not prefer to refund the amount expended.
Civil Code, Article 548 — Expenses for Luxury Are Never Refunded. Read the full provision →
Luxury expenses are not reimbursed
Article 548 draws a firm distinction between types of expenses. Necessary expenses — those needed to keep the property in good condition — and useful expenses — those that increase the property's value or productivity — are reimbursable to a good-faith possessor. But expenses for pure luxury or mere pleasure are not. A good-faith possessor who adds decorative tiles, ornamental gardens, or aesthetic enhancements that serve no functional purpose cannot demand that the true owner pay for those additions when the possession ends.
The right to remove ornaments — with two conditions
Since the possessor cannot be reimbursed for ornaments, the law instead allows removal — but only when two conditions are both satisfied. First, the removal must cause no injury to the principal thing: if detaching the ornaments would damage the property itself, the possessor cannot remove them. Second, the successor in possession must not prefer to refund the amount spent. If the successor is willing to pay what the ornaments cost, the possessor's removal right is cut off — the successor's preference to retain them governs.
The successor's option to pay and keep
The successor's option to pay and retain the ornaments is not merely passive — the successor must prefer to refund. If the successor actively elects to pay for the ornaments, the original possessor cannot override that preference by insisting on removal. The law treats the successor's willingness to reimburse as sufficient consideration for keeping the ornaments in place. What the successor pays is the amount expended — the original cost of the ornament — not necessarily its current market value, which may be higher or lower.
No removal if the thing would be injured
Even if the successor does not want to pay, the possessor still cannot remove ornaments that are so integrated into the property that removal would cause injury. An ornamental mosaic permanently embedded in a wall, decorative ironwork attached to a structure, or a built-in architectural element cannot be taken away if pulling it out would damage the underlying property. In that situation, the ornament stays with the property and neither the successor pays for it nor the possessor recovers it — the cost of the luxury falls entirely on the possessor who chose to make the addition.