Short answer. No. Article 548 says expenses for pure luxury or mere pleasure are never refunded to a possessor in good faith. The possessor's only remedy is to remove the ornaments if that causes no injury to the property, unless the new possessor prefers to pay for them instead.
What the law says
Expenses for pure luxury or mere pleasure shall not be refunded to the possessor in good faith; but 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 treated differently from necessary or useful ones
The Civil Code separates expenses on property into different categories, and luxury expenses get the least protection. Article 548 is direct: "expenses for pure luxury or mere pleasure shall not be refunded to the possessor in good faith." Unlike necessary expenses, which preserve the thing, or useful expenses, which increase its value in a way the owner can be made to pay for, purely decorative or pleasure-driven spending is not something the law makes the owner reimburse, even where the possessor genuinely believed in good faith that the property was theirs.
The possessor's actual remedy: removal, not reimbursement
Because reimbursement is off the table, the article gives the possessor a different option instead. The possessor "may remove the ornaments with which he has embellished the principal thing if it suffers no injury thereby." So if you installed decorative fixtures, moldings, or similar embellishments, you can generally take them back with you when you leave, provided removing them does not damage the underlying property. This preserves your investment in the ornament itself, even though you cannot force the owner to pay you for it.
Removal is not absolute — injury to the property blocks it
The right to remove luxury improvements only exists "if it suffers no injury thereby." If taking out the ornament would damage the walls, structure, or other parts of the property, you lose the right to remove it, and you are left with neither removal nor reimbursement. This is a meaningful limitation for improvements that are built into or bonded to the structure, as opposed to fixtures that can be detached cleanly.
The owner can choose to keep it and pay instead
Even where removal without injury is possible, the article gives the property's new possessor — typically the owner recovering the property — the option to keep the ornament by paying for it: removal is allowed only "if his successor in the possession does not prefer to refund the amount expended." In practice, this means the owner decides. If the owner would rather keep your decorative additions than see them removed, the owner can offer to pay what you spent, and you no longer have the right to insist on taking them out.