Facts:

In May 1951, Chua Ching Beng and Pilar Atilano were married in Zamboanga City. After their marriage, they went to Manila and live with Chua's parents. In October 1951, the couple went to Zamboanga to visit Pilar’s parents. Chua returned to Manila with the understanding that Pilar would follow him, but she did not. 

In 1953, Pilar filed a complaint for support against Chua alleging that they have been living separately for two years due to constant fights and Chua's inability to provide a home for themselves apart from his parents. 

Chua stated that he was willing to support his wife but only if she lives in Manila with him. He was also willing to establish a conjugal dwelling separate from his parents. 

Meanwhile, Pilar filed a petition for alimony pendente lite. The court rendered judgment granting the Pilar’s allowance after finding that the latter's refusal to return was caused by her aversion to stay with the parents of Chua after she had experienced some previous in-law troubles. 

Chua filed a petition electing to fulfill his obligation as thus fixed by the court by receiving and maintaining Pilar at his residence in Pasay, which was, apart, from that of his parents and that if the Pilar refuses, he will not be compelled to remit allowance to her in Zamboanga.

His petition was denied, thus this case. 


Issue:

Is Pilar entitled to support when she refused to live with Chua on account of some misunderstanding she had with the husband's immediate relatives?


Held:

Art. 299 of the Civil Code provides:

ART. 299. The person obliged to give support may, at his option, fulfill his obligation either by paying the allowance fixed, or by receiving and maintaining in his house the person who has a right to receive support. The latter alternative cannot be availed of in this case there is a moral or legal obstacle thereto.

The aforeqouted provision of the law is clear enough to require any further elucidation. In giving the obligor the option to fulfill his duty, it provides for only one occasion when the second alternative could not be availed of i.e., when there is a moral or legal obstacle thereto.

Certainly, misunderstanding with in-laws, who may be considered third parties to the marriage, is not the moral or legal obstacle that the lawmakers contemplated in the drafting of said provision. The law, in giving the husband authority to fix the conjugal residence (Art. 110), does not prohibit him from establishing the same at the patriarchal home, nor is it against any recognized norm of morality, especially if he is not fully capable of meeting his obligation as such head of a family without the aid of his elders. But even granting arguendo that it might be "illegal" for him to persist on living with his parents over the objection of his wife, this argument becomes moot in view of defendant's manifestation that he is willing to establish a residence, separate from his parents, if plaintiff so desires.

Although the husband and the wife are, obliged to live together, observe mutual respect and fidelity and render mutual help and assistance (Art. 109), and that the wife is entitled to be supported, our laws contain no provision compelling the wife to live with her husband where even without legal justification she establishes her residence apart from that provided for by the former, yet and in such event We would see no plausible reason why she should be allowed any support from the husband.

Judgment was modified. Chua was given the option of supporting his wife at their conjugal dwelling apart from the home of his parents, and should Pilar refuse to abide by the terms, then Chua would be relieved from the obligation of giving any support. (Atilano vs. Chua Ching Beng, G.R. No. L-11086, March 29, 1958)