Short answer. Yes. Article 1068 says that when career expenses like law school do have to be collated, the sum you would have spent on food and lodging had you lived in your parents' house is deducted from that amount before it's charged against your share of the estate.
What the law says
Expenses incurred by the parents in giving their children a professional, vocational or other career shall not be brought to collation unless the parents so provide, or unless they impair the legitime
Civil Code, Article 1068 — Career and Professional Expenses. Read the full provision →
What the law says
the sum which the child would have spent if he had lived in the house and company of his parents shall be deducted therefrom
Civil Code, Article 1068 — Career and Professional Expenses. Read the full provision →
When career expenses are collated in the first place
Collation of career expenses is not automatic. The article starts from the opposite default: "Expenses incurred by the parents in giving their children a professional, vocational or other career shall not be brought to collation unless the parents so provide, or unless they impair the legitime." So your law school expenses only enter the collation calculation at all if your parents specifically directed that they should be collated, or if, without collation, the other heirs' legitime would end up short. If neither condition applies, there is nothing here to deduct from in the first place.
The credit built into the same article
Once collation of those expenses is actually required, the article gives you exactly the credit you are asking about: "the sum which the child would have spent if he had lived in the house and company of his parents shall be deducted therefrom." In other words, the law does not treat every peso spent sending you to law school as something to be charged fully against your share. It carves out, and subtracts, the portion that represents what your parents would have spent on you anyway, food and lodging included, had you simply stayed home.
Why the deduction makes sense
The logic behind the deduction is straightforward: a child who lives away from home while pursuing a career still needs food and a place to stay, expenses the parents would ordinarily have covered regardless. Charging the child's entire share for career expenses without accounting for that overlap would effectively penalize the child twice, once for the education itself and once for costs the parents would have paid out of pocket either way. The deduction keeps collation focused on the actual advantage the child received, not on ordinary living costs.
What the article leaves open
The article does not set out a formula for arriving at that deducted sum, or say who calculates it or what proof is needed to support a particular figure. In practice, that number has to be worked out from the actual facts, what a comparable cost of food and lodging in the parents' household would have been over the relevant period, rather than from anything fixed in the text itself. If this deduction becomes a live issue in your family's settlement, the specific amount is likely to be something the parties or the court need to determine on the evidence.