Short answer. Yes — and the choice belongs to the person paying. Article 204 gives the obligor the option of paying the allowance fixed or of receiving and maintaining the recipient in the family dwelling. But that second option is closed where there is a moral or legal obstacle to it.
What the law says
The person obliged to give support shall have the option to fulfill the obligation either by paying the allowance fixed, or by receiving and maintaining in the family dwelling the person who has a right to receive support. The latter alternative cannot be availed of in case there is a moral or legal obstacle thereto.
Family Code, Article 204 — The Obligor's Option: Allowance or Board. Read the full provision →
The option is the payer's, not the recipient's
The article is unusual in giving the choice to the person who owes rather than the person who needs: the person obliged to give support shall have the option to fulfill the obligation either by paying the allowance fixed, or by receiving and maintaining in the family dwelling the person who has a right to receive support. A recipient who would rather have cash cannot insist on it merely because cash is more convenient. The reason is that the obligation is to maintain a person, not to transfer money, and taking them into the household is one honest way of doing exactly that.
The moral or legal obstacle
The second sentence is the limit, and in practice it is where most disputes are actually decided: the latter alternative cannot be availed of in case there is a moral or legal obstacle thereto. The Code does not define the obstacle, which is deliberate — it covers the situations where living in that dwelling is not something the recipient can reasonably be asked to do. Where the household is itself the source of the harm, where a court order keeps the parties apart, or where the arrangement would put the recipient under the roof of someone they are in litigation with, the option is unavailable and the allowance has to be paid.
Board is not a discount
Choosing the household option does not shrink what is owed; it changes only the form in which it is delivered. The recipient is to be received and maintained, which means genuinely provided for in the ordinary run of the household, not merely permitted to sleep there while everything else is left to them. A parent who invokes the option and then supplies a room and nothing more has not performed the obligation. Whether the option has been used or abused turns on what the recipient actually receives day to day, which is a question of fact and worth documenting as it happens.
If the option is being used to force a result
Sometimes the offer of a room is a manoeuvre — a way to make an unwelcome living arrangement the price of eating, or to pressure a separated spouse. The answer is not to refuse and go without, but to put the obstacle on the record: what happened in that household, who else lives there, what orders exist between the parties. If circumstances have changed since the amount was set, Article 202 allows the figure itself to be revisited proportionately. Bring the dates, the messages and any protection or custody orders to a lawyer before responding to the offer.
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.
- Ma. Belen B. Mangonon etc. vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 125041, June 30, 2006 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Related provisions
- Family Code, Article 202 — Support Rises and Falls With Circumstances
- Family Code, Article 205 — Support Is Exempt From Attachment and Execution