Short answer. Yes, on use and care. Under Article 1651, the sublessee is bound to the lessor for all acts which refer to the use and preservation of the thing leased in the manner stipulated between the lessor and the lessee. So even without a contract directly between them, the subtenant answers to the owner for misusing or damaging the property.
What the law says
the sublessee is bound to the lessor for all acts which refer to the use and preservation of the thing leased in the manner stipulated between the lessor and the lessee
Civil Code, Article 1651 — Sublessee's Liability to the Lessor. Read the full provision →
A direct link the subtenant cannot dodge
Ordinarily a subtenant deals only with the main tenant, not the owner. Article 1651 creates an exception on one important point. It says the sublessee is bound to the lessor for all acts which refer to the use and preservation of the thing leased in the manner stipulated between the lessor and the lessee. In other words, on how the property is used and looked after, the subtenant is answerable straight to the owner, even though the two never signed a contract together. The owner does not have to sue the middle tenant first for these matters; the subtenant is directly on the hook for how the thing is treated.
The terms that bind flow from the head lease
The standard the subtenant must meet is set by the head lease — the terms agreed between the owner and the main tenant. If that lease limits the property to a particular use, or requires the tenant to preserve it in a certain way, those same limits reach down to the subtenant. A subtenant cannot claim ignorance of restrictions in a contract he was not a party to, because the law binds him to the manner stipulated between lessor and lessee. Practically, anyone taking a sublease should ask to see the head lease, since its use-and-preservation clauses will govern him as against the owner.
The limit: it covers use and preservation only
This direct liability is not unlimited. It reaches acts referring to the use and preservation of the thing — misusing the premises, causing damage, breaching the permitted purpose, failing to keep the property as required. It does not make the subtenant the owner's debtor for everything. Article 1651 opens with the phrase without prejudice to his obligation toward the sublessor, meaning the subtenant still owes the main tenant separately under their own sublease. And a related rule makes the subtenant answerable for rent only to a limited extent tied to what he owes the sublessor — the broad direct link here is about care of the property, not general contractual duties.
What this means in a dispute
If a subtenant damages the property or uses it in a way the head lease forbids, the owner may proceed against the subtenant directly for those acts, rather than being confined to a claim against the main tenant. The main tenant, of course, remains responsible to the owner as well, so the owner may have overlapping remedies. For a subtenant, the lesson is that stepping into premises through a sublease still carries direct duties to the owner about how you treat the place. For an owner, the article is a useful tool when the person actually occupying and damaging the property is the subtenant, not the original lessee.
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.
- Agustin P. Dela Torre vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals, et al./Philippine Trigon Shipyard Corporation, et al. vs. Crisostomo G. Concepcion, et al, G.R. No. 160088 / G.R. No. 160565, July 13, 2011 — read the decision on LawPhil →