Short answer. He recovers his property as it currently stands, plus the price of anything sold in the meantime or whatever was bought with that price — but Article 392 denies him any claim to the fruits or rents that accrued while he was away, even though he gets the property itself back.
What the law says
If the absentee appears, or without appearing his existence is proved, he shall recover his property in the condition in which it may be found, and the price of any property that may have been alienated or the property acquired therewith; but he cannot claim either fruits or rents.
Civil Code, Article 392 — If the Absentee Returns. Read the full provision →
Recovery is triggered by reappearance or proof of existence
Article 392 opens the door to recovery in either of two ways: the absentee appears, or without appearing his existence is proved. He does not necessarily have to show up in person for this rule to apply — establishing that he is alive is enough to trigger his right to recover, even if he has not physically returned to reclaim it himself in person.
The property comes back as-is, not restored to its original state
What he gets back is his property in the condition in which it may be found. The law does not require whoever was managing or holding the property to return it in the same state it was in when the absentee left — deterioration, improvement, or other changes that occurred are not undone; the property is simply handed back in whatever condition it is actually in.
Alienated property is replaced by its price or what it bought
If some of the absentee's property was sold while he was gone, Article 392 does not require the specific item to be recovered from whoever bought it. Instead, he recovers the price of any property that may have been alienated or the property acquired therewith — meaning he is entitled to the proceeds of the sale, or to whatever property those proceeds were used to acquire in its place.
No claim to fruits or rents earned in the meantime
The final clause answers the second half of your question directly: he cannot claim either fruits or rents. Whatever income the property generated — rent collected, harvests produced, or similar returns — while he was absent stays with whoever was managing it during that period; the absentee's recovery is limited to the property itself, its price if sold, or what that price purchased, and does not reach back to claim the income the property produced along the way.
Why the rule draws the line where it does
Article 392 restores the absentee's capital — the property, or its equivalent value if it was sold — without also handing him the returns that property generated while someone else was left managing his affairs during his absence. Whoever administered the property in the meantime, and dealt with the fruits or rents it produced, is not required to account for and surrender that income once the absentee reappears or is proved to be alive, even as the underlying property itself has to be given back.