Short answer. Yes, unless the lease expressly prohibits it. Article 1650 lets the lessee sublet the thing leased, in whole or in part, where the contract carries no express prohibition. Subletting does not release the tenant, who remains answerable to the lessor for performance of 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, without prejudice to his responsibility for the performance of the contract toward the lessor.
Civil Code, Article 1650 — Subleasing. Read the full provision →
The default runs the other way from what people expect
Most tenants assume they need the landlord's blessing and most landlords assume they must be asked. Article 1650 sets the opposite default: 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. Silence in the lease is permission, not refusal. That is why a landlord who cares about who occupies the property has to say so in the contract, and why a tenant reading an old lease should check whether the clause everyone assumed was there was ever actually written into it.
Express means express
The prohibition has to be stated, not inferred from the general tenor of the agreement or from what was discussed when it was signed. A clause requiring the lessor's written consent to a sublease is an express prohibition in substance, because it withholds the right until consent is given. A clause merely identifying the tenant by name, or describing the property as a family residence, generally is not. Where the lease does prohibit subletting and the tenant sublets anyway, the breach is a violation of a condition agreed upon, which is itself a ground for the lessor to seek ejectment.
A sublease is not an assignment
The distinction matters more than the vocabulary suggests. Subletting creates a second, subordinate lease while the original one continues, and the tenant stays in the picture, liable for the performance of the contract toward the lessor. Assignment is a transfer of the lease itself, putting someone else in the tenant's place, and Article 1649 makes that dependent on the lessor's consent. So a tenant who wants to leave permanently and hand the unit over is not doing what Article 1650 permits, whatever the paperwork is called.
What each side should do
A tenant intending to sublet should read the lease clause by clause for any consent or prohibition language, keep the sublease in writing, and remember that the subtenant's rent arrears, damage and conduct all land back on the original tenant. A lessor who objects should look first at what the contract says rather than at what feels reasonable, since without an express prohibition the objection has little to rest on. If future control matters, the answer is a clause in the next lease, agreed before signing, not a demand made afterwards.
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 →
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 1649 — Assignment of the Lease
- Civil Code, Article 1651 — Sublessee's Liability to the Lessor