1) The core rule: a bigamous “second marriage” is void, so the “second spouse” is generally not a spouse for inheritance

Under Philippine law, if a person contracts a second marriage while a prior valid marriage is still subsisting (and not yet legally ended by death, annulment, declaration of nullity, or other legally recognized termination), the later marriage is typically void ab initio (void from the beginning). A void marriage produces no marital status and, as a rule, gives the “second spouse” no rights as a surviving spouse in succession.

This matters because in intestate succession (no will), the surviving spouse is a compulsory heir under the Civil Code. If the “second spouse” is not legally a spouse, they do not inherit as a spouse.

Bottom line: In a classic bigamous setup, the lawful spouse (from the first valid marriage) is the surviving spouse for inheritance purposes, not the second.

2) “Inheritance” vs. “getting property anyway”: the second spouse may still receive property through property relations, not succession

Even if the second marriage is void and the second spouse cannot inherit as a spouse, the second spouse may still end up receiving property when the relationship falls under rules on property relations in void marriages (Family Code).

This is the most important practical point:

Succession answers: Who are heirs and what share of the estate do they inherit?
Property relations answer: What portion is not even part of the decedent’s estate because it already belongs to the surviving partner as a co-owner?

If the second spouse has a recognized share under property rules, that share is taken out before computing the “estate” to be inherited.

So, the second spouse’s strongest route is often:

Not inheritance rights, but co-ownership rights.

3) The governing property regimes for void or bigamous unions: Family Code Articles 147 and 148

A. Article 147 (void marriage, but both parties in good faith)

Where a union is void (including void for bigamy) but the parties acted in good faith—commonly discussed as a putative marriage situation—properties acquired during the union through the parties’ work or industry are generally treated under a co-ownership framework.

Key features (simplified):

Wages, salaries, and properties acquired by work/industry during the union are presumed to be owned in equal shares.
Each party’s contribution is recognized; if one is a homemaker, domestic care is generally treated as contribution.
Donations by a party to the other and certain benefits may be restricted depending on circumstances and public policy.

Effect at death: the surviving partner keeps their own co-ownership share, and only the decedent’s share goes into the estate for inheritance by the lawful heirs.

B. Article 148 (void union where one or both are in bad faith, or there is a subsisting marriage and a party knows it)

If one or both parties are in bad faith, Article 148 generally applies, which is more restrictive:

Only properties acquired through actual joint contribution (money, property, or industry that can be proven) are co-owned in proportion to contributions.
If only one contributed, the property may belong exclusively to the contributor.
A party in bad faith may lose or be limited in what they can claim.

Effect at death: the second spouse must prove contributions to claim any share; absent proof, the second spouse may receive nothing by way of co-ownership.

4) Good faith vs. bad faith: the decisive factual issue

In practice, cases turn on whether the second spouse is:

In good faith: honestly believed the first marriage was nonexistent, void, already ended, or the spouse was legally presumed dead under the Family Code; and had no knowledge of a subsisting valid marriage.
In bad faith: knew (or had reason to know) that a prior valid marriage subsisted, or participated in circumstances that make the second union legally blameworthy.

Burden and proof: Good faith is often asserted by the second spouse, but specific facts—documents, timelines, public records, admissions, and community knowledge—can defeat it.

5) The “presumptive death” exception (Family Code Article 41): when the second marriage may be valid (and inheritance rights follow)

A second marriage is not automatically bigamous if it falls under the presumptive death rule for an absent spouse.

Under the Family Code, a spouse may remarry if:

the prior spouse has been absent for the required period, and
the present spouse has a well-founded belief the absent spouse is already dead, and
the present spouse obtains a judicial declaration of presumptive death before remarrying.

If these requirements are satisfied, the subsequent marriage can be valid.

If valid: the second spouse is a real spouse and becomes a compulsory heir with standard inheritance shares.

If the absent spouse later reappears: the law provides specific effects on the subsequent marriage depending on statutory conditions, but the analysis becomes highly fact-specific. The crucial point is that compliance with Article 41 is the pathway that can convert what looks like “bigamy” into a legally protected remarriage.

6) Intestate succession: what the second spouse gets in a bigamous (void) marriage

A. The second spouse does not inherit as a spouse

In intestate succession, the decedent’s heirs are determined by law. The lawful spouse and legitimate children (and other heirs depending on the family situation) inherit.

A “second spouse” in a void bigamous marriage is generally treated as a stranger for intestate inheritance purposes.

B. What the second spouse may receive: their co-ownership share under Articles 147/148

Before intestate distribution, you determine:

what belongs to the surviving partner by co-ownership; and
what belongs to the decedent (the decedent’s share) which forms the estate.

Illustration (conceptual):

Property acquired during the second union is worth ₱10,000,000.
If Article 147 applies (both in good faith), the surviving partner’s presumptive share might be ₱5,000,000 (subject to characterization rules).
The remaining ₱5,000,000 is the decedent’s share that goes into the estate and is inherited by the lawful heirs (lawful spouse, children, etc.).

If Article 148 applies, the surviving partner might get only what they can prove they contributed—sometimes far less, sometimes zero.

7) Testate succession (with a will): can the decedent leave something to the second spouse?

A. A will cannot defeat legitimes of compulsory heirs

Philippine succession law protects compulsory heirs (e.g., legitimate children, lawful spouse) through legitimes. The decedent can only freely give away the free portion after satisfying legitimes.

So, even if the second spouse is not an heir by law, the decedent may still leave the second spouse something from the free portion, subject to two major caveats:

B. Public policy limitations and donation-like restrictions

Philippine family law imposes restrictions on transfers that undermine marriage and family policy. In some situations involving a relationship that is adulterous, concubinage-like, or otherwise contrary to law, courts may treat transfers with suspicion or invalidate certain dispositions depending on the form and circumstances (especially inter vivos donations). Testamentary dispositions can also be challenged if they effectively circumvent restrictions or violate mandatory rules.

Because outcomes depend heavily on:

the timing (during life vs by will),
the parties’ knowledge and marital status,
the nature of the disposition,
and whether it impairs legitimes,

the safer statement is:

A will can benefit a second spouse only within the free portion and only if the disposition survives challenges grounded on compulsory heirship and public policy.

8) The lawful spouse’s position: strongest claim in both status and succession

In a bigamous setup:

The lawful spouse retains spousal status (unless the first marriage was itself void and judicially declared void in a manner recognized for remarriage rules).
The lawful spouse is a compulsory heir and shares in the estate under intestate rules.
The lawful spouse may also have claims in the marital property regime of the first marriage (absolute community or conjugal partnership, depending on when the marriage was celebrated and applicable rules).

This often produces a “two-layer” property analysis:

Dissolve the first marriage property regime and identify what belongs to the first marriage partnership.
Identify what (if anything) is co-owned with the second partner under Articles 147/148.
Only then determine the net estate for succession.

9) Children in the second union: their inheritance rights are separate from the second spouse’s

Even if the second marriage is void:

Children’s rights depend on their status (legitimate, illegitimate, legitimized, adopted, etc.).
Children are often compulsory heirs (legitimate and illegitimate children have protected shares under different rules).

A second spouse’s lack of inheritance rights does not automatically mean children in that union have no inheritance rights. The analysis depends on:

filiation,
legitimacy classification,
proof of parentage,
and how legitimes apply in the presence of lawful spouse and other heirs.

10) Benefits that look like inheritance but are not (insurance, SSS/GSIS, pensions)

Some transfers occur outside succession:

Life insurance proceeds payable to a named beneficiary,
Retirement and pension benefits,
Certain social insurance benefits (SSS/GSIS) governed by special laws and agency rules.

These systems often prioritize:

the legal spouse and dependent children,
and they can reject claims by a partner in a void marriage.

However, outcomes vary by benefit type, governing statute/rules, beneficiary designation, and whether there is a recognized legal spouse. These are not governed purely by Civil Code succession rules, though they frequently intersect with family law status disputes.

11) Litigation reality: how claims are typically raised and decided

When a decedent leaves behind a lawful spouse and a second spouse from a void marriage, disputes commonly arise in:

settlement of estate proceedings,
partition and accounting cases,
actions to recover property,
declarations of nullity or related family law proceedings (sometimes already resolved, sometimes not).

Typical issues:

Was the first marriage valid and still subsisting?
Was the second spouse in good faith or bad faith?
Which properties were acquired during which relationship, and by what funds?
Which property regime applies (first marriage ACP/CPG; second relationship Art 147/148 co-ownership)?
What is the net estate after excluding the surviving partner’s share?
Who are compulsory heirs and what are their legitimes?

12) Practical “rules of thumb” in Philippine context

If the second marriage is bigamous and void, the second spouse does not inherit as spouse.
The second spouse may still receive property via co-ownership (Art 147 if good faith; Art 148 if bad faith or illicit circumstances), which is often the real economic battleground.
Good faith is the hinge. Proving lack of knowledge and reasonable belief matters.
If the second marriage was entered under a valid presumptive-death declaration (Art 41), it may be valid and the second spouse can inherit as spouse.
Even with a will, compulsory heirs’ legitimes limit what can be given to a second spouse, and public policy challenges may arise.
Sequence matters: determine property regimes and exclusions first, then compute the estate for succession.

13) A structured framework for analyzing any case

To analyze “inheritance rights of a second spouse in a bigamous marriage,” follow this order:

Validity of marriages
- Confirm validity of the first marriage.
- Determine if it was still subsisting when the second marriage was celebrated.
- Check for Article 41 compliance if remarriage was based on absence.
Status of the second spouse
- Void bigamous spouse (no spousal inheritance rights), or valid spouse (inherits as spouse).
Property classification
- First marriage regime (ACP/CPG) and what belongs to it.
- Second relationship property relations (Art 147 vs Art 148).
Estate composition
- Remove what belongs to the surviving partner (co-ownership share).
- Remove what belongs to the first marriage partnership as applicable.
- What remains is the decedent’s estate.
Succession distribution
- Identify heirs (lawful spouse, children, parents, etc.).
- Apply intestate rules or the will, subject to legitimes.

14) The unavoidable conclusion

In Philippine law, a second spouse in a bigamous marriage usually has no inheritance rights as a spouse because the marriage is void. The meaningful potential recovery comes from property relations in void unions—especially where the second spouse can prove good faith (Article 147) or at least actual contribution (Article 148). The only clean path to full spousal inheritance rights in what would otherwise be a bigamous scenario is when the remarriage is legally protected (most notably through judicial presumptive death under Article 41).