Short answer. It turns on your good faith, not on the bigamy itself. Donations by reason of marriage remain valid; they are revoked by operation of law only where the donee, meaning the spouse who received them, contracted the marriage in bad faith. A spouse who genuinely did not know keeps them.
What the law says
Donations by reason of marriage shall remain valid, except that if the donee contracted the marriage in bad faith, such donations made to said donee are revoked by operation of law
Family Code, Article 43 — Effects of Terminating a Subsequent Marriage. Read the full provision →
What the law says
The innocent spouse may revoke the designation of the other spouse who acted in bad faith as beneficiary in any insurance policy, even if such designation be stipulated as irrevocable
Family Code, Article 43 — Effects of Terminating a Subsequent Marriage. Read the full provision →
Not every present is a donation by reason of marriage
The rule is narrower than the question usually assumes. It speaks of donations by reason of marriage — gifts made because the marriage was going to happen or because it had happened, typically formalised and often substantial: a house, a lot, a vehicle put in the other spouse's name. An anniversary watch, household purchases, or money handed over during the relationship are not automatically in that category. So the first question in any real dispute is not whether the marriage failed but whether the thing in issue was given by reason of the marriage at all. If it was not, this provision simply does not reach it.
Bad faith is measured against the donee
Read the exception carefully, because the direction matters. The donation is revoked where the donee contracted the marriage in bad faith — that is, where the person who received the gift is the one who knew the marriage was defective. A spouse who was deceived about the existing prior marriage is not the donee in bad faith and does not lose what was given to them; the sanction falls on the person who married knowing what they were doing. Many people arrive at this question assuming that a void marriage simply unwinds everything on both sides. It does not. The Code sorts the consequences by knowledge.
‘Revoked by operation of law’ and the property split
Where the exception applies, the revocation follows from the fact of bad faith rather than from the donor changing their mind, which is what by operation of law signals. The same article deals with the couple's property in a parallel way: the community or conjugal partnership is dissolved and liquidated, and a spouse who married in bad faith forfeits his or her share of the net profits, which go first to the common children, then to the children of a previous marriage, and only then to the innocent spouse. Bad faith therefore costs the guilty spouse the gift, the profits, and the right to inherit from the innocent one.
Insurance, and what to gather before anyone signs anything
One consequence is easy to overlook and time-sensitive. The innocent spouse may revoke the designation of a bad-faith spouse as insurance beneficiary even if such designation be stipulated as irrevocable — an override of what the policy itself says. That is a right to be exercised, not something that happens by itself. Practically, the documents that decide this are the deed or instrument behind each major gift, the marriage records for both marriages, and any policy naming a spouse. What proves or disproves good faith is usually contemporaneous: what was disclosed, when, and to whom, before the second wedding.
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 →