Short answer. Yes. Article 1650 lets you sublet the unit — in whole or in part — when the lease contains no express prohibition, but it says so without prejudice to his responsibility for the performance of the contract toward the lessor. Subletting does not hand your obligations to the subtenant; you stay answerable to your landlord for the lease.
What the law says
When in the contract of lease of things there is no express prohibition, the lessee may sublet the thing leased, in whole or in part
Civil Code, Article 1650 — Subleasing. Read the full provision →
What the law says
without prejudice to his responsibility for the performance of the contract toward the lessor
Civil Code, Article 1650 — Subleasing. Read the full provision →
Subletting is allowed, but you stay on the hook
Article 1650 gives a conditional freedom. It says that when in the contract of lease of things there is no express prohibition, the lessee may sublet the thing leased, in whole or in part. So unless your lease forbids it, you are entitled to sublet. But the same sentence attaches a string: the right exists without prejudice to his responsibility for the performance of the contract toward the lessor. That clause is the answer to your question. Subletting lets someone else occupy the unit, but it does not replace you in the eyes of your landlord. Your original lease obligations survive the sublease in full.
A sublease is not an assignment
The distinction that matters here is between subletting and assigning the lease. When you sublet, you create a second, separate lease between yourself and your subtenant while your own lease with the landlord continues; you sit in the middle, tenant to your landlord and lessor to your subtenant. You have not transferred your contract to anyone. Because your relationship with the landlord is untouched, you remain the person he looks to for rent, for the condition of the unit, and for every other duty under the lease. If the subtenant fails to pay or causes damage, that is your problem to answer for toward the landlord.
What 'no express prohibition' means
Article 1650's permission depends on the absence of an express prohibition in the lease. Many written leases contain exactly such a clause — 'no subletting without the lessor's written consent,' or an outright ban. Where the lease prohibits it, subletting anyway is a breach, and it can expose you to the consequences the lease and the law attach to breach. So the first thing to check is your contract. Silence in the lease works in your favour under this article; a clear prohibition does not, and ignoring it puts your tenancy at risk rather than merely leaving your obligations intact.
Practical consequences of staying responsible
Because you remain responsible for performance of the contract toward the lessor, the practical burden of the sublease falls on you. If the subtenant stops paying, you still owe the landlord the rent; if the subtenant damages the unit or overstays, you are the one the landlord can pursue under the lease. Your protection lies in your own sublease agreement with the subtenant, which is where you can pass those risks and duties on to him and keep the right to recover from him. Choosing a reliable subtenant and documenting the sublease terms carefully is therefore very much in your interest.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Analita P. Inocencion, substituting for Ramon Inocencion (deceased) vs. Hospicio de San Jose, G.R. No. 201787, September 25, 2013 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Murli Sadhwani, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 128119, October 17, 1997 — read the decision on LawPhil →