Short answer. Under Article 43(2) of the Family Code, the bad-faith spouse's share of the net profits from the community property or conjugal partnership is forfeited in favor of the common children first. If there are none, it goes to the guilty spouse's children from a previous marriage. If there are no children at all, the innocent spouse receives it.
What the law says
if either spouse contracted said marriage in bad faith, his or her share of the net profits of the community property or conjugal partnership property shall be forfeited in favor of the common children or, if there are none, the children of the guilty spouse by a previous marriage or in default of children, the innocent spouse
Family Code, Article 43 — Effects of Terminating a Subsequent Marriage. Read the full provision →
The forfeiture cascade
Article 43(2) of the Family Code sets up a hierarchy for where the bad-faith spouse's forfeited share goes. First in line: "the common children" — children of the subsequent marriage itself. If the subsequent marriage had no children, the forfeited share goes to "the children of the guilty spouse by a previous marriage." If the guilty spouse has no children from any marriage, the share goes to "the innocent spouse." This cascade ensures that the bad-faith spouse cannot profit from the marriage while the innocent spouse and any children are left without remedy.
What 'net profits' means
The forfeiture applies to the bad-faith spouse's share of the net profits of the community property or conjugal partnership — not to their entire property. Net profits, in this context, generally refers to the increase in the value of the spouses' combined property from the beginning of the marriage to its termination, after subtracting the capital brought in by each spouse. The bad-faith spouse's share of that gain is what is forfeited. They may still retain what they brought into the marriage; it is the fruits of the marriage that they lose.
The termination that triggers this rule
This provision applies specifically to subsequent marriages contracted after a judicial declaration of presumptive death, and which are later terminated because the absent first spouse reappears. The bad faith referred to is the knowledge that the first spouse might still be alive, or the absence of a genuine reasonable belief in the presumptive death, at the time the second marriage was entered into. The innocent spouse, by contrast, genuinely and reasonably believed the first spouse was dead and is protected by Article 43's framework.
How this works alongside the other penalties
The forfeiture of net profits is just one of several consequences the bad-faith spouse faces under Article 43. They are also disqualified from inheriting from the innocent spouse by testate or intestate succession. Donations by reason of the marriage made to the bad-faith spouse are revoked by operation of law. The innocent spouse may revoke any insurance beneficiary designation in the bad-faith spouse's favor, even if it was irrevocable. These penalties operate together and are intended to put the bad-faith spouse in the position they would have been in had they not contracted the fraudulent subsequent marriage.
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.
- V. Maquilan vs. D. Maquilan, G.R. No. 155409, June 8, 2007 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Lucila David and the Heirs of Rene F. Aguas, namely: Princess Luren D. Aguas, G.R. No. 241036, January 26, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Noel Buenaventura vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 127358, March 31, 2005 — read the decision on LawPhil →