Ex-Spouses and Inheritance Rights in the Philippines

Ex-spouses in the Philippines generally have no right to inherit from a former spouse's estate once the marriage ends through recognized divorce, annulment, or legal separation. Philippine law treats divorced or annulled spouses as no longer qualifying as compulsory heirs under intestate or testate succession rules. This principle stems from the Civil Code and Family Code, which prioritize current marital status for spousal inheritance claims.

Legal Basis in Philippine Law

The Civil Code (Republic Act No. 386) governs succession in Articles 887-1014 for intestate cases and Articles 783-886 for testate succession. Compulsory heirs include the legitimate surviving spouse, alongside children and parents, but only if the spousal relationship exists at death—excluding ex-spouses post-dissolution. Article 887 explicitly lists the "surviving spouse" as a compulsory heir, a status lost upon divorce recognition or annulment, as confirmed in cases like Republic v. Manalo (2018).​

Legal separation under Family Code Articles 55-67 disqualifies the offending spouse from inheriting intestate from the innocent one per Article 63(4), while both retain some rights absent fault findings. Annulment declares the marriage void ab initio, fully stripping ex-spouses of inheritance eligibility similar to divorce effects.​

Impact of Divorce and Annulment

Foreign divorces are recognized under Family Code Article 26 for mixed marriages (Filipino-foreigner), requiring judicial confirmation via petition in Regional Trial Court. Once recognized, the ex-spouse loses "surviving spouse" status, barring intestate shares—like one-half of the estate without children—and legitime claims. For example, a Filipino ex-wife cannot claim from her deceased American ex-husband's Philippine estate post-U.S. divorce recognition.​

In testate succession, pre-divorce wills favoring an ex-spouse remain but cannot override legitime for other compulsory heirs; ex-spouses lack mandatory shares post-dissolution. Property regimes liquidate upon divorce (Family Code Article 129), dividing assets equally but excluding them from future estates, preventing inheritance overlap.​

Exceptions and Special Scenarios

De facto separation without court action preserves inheritance rights, as the marriage subsists under Civil Code Article 15. Muslim Filipinos under PD 1083 may have divorce options affecting inheritance via Shari'a rules. Dual citizens reacquiring Philippine citizenship post-foreign divorce (RA 9225) may still qualify for recognition if divorced as aliens.​

Children from dissolved marriages remain compulsory heirs unaffected by parental divorce. Disinheritance for causes like adultery (Civil Code Article 919) applies pre- or post-dissolution but requires valid grounds.

Practical Steps for Estate Planning

Heirs must probate estates via judicial (with will or disputes) or extrajudicial settlement (no will, all heirs agree). Ex-spouses can contest unrecognized foreign divorces, so prompt RTC petitions are essential. Consult family law experts for recognition, as delays preserve spousal claims; prenups clarify expectations in mixed marriages. Estate taxes apply without spousal exemptions post-dissolution (TRAIN Law).​

Source: Ziggurat Real Estate

Bigamy may be committed by one person

What happens when you marry a person who is still legally married to another person?

Are you also liable for the crime of bigamy?

Bigamy is a crime punishable under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines:

"The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall contract a second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings."

To guide you further, the elements of bigamy were enumerated in Lasanas v. People of the Philippines, GR 159031, June 23, 2014, where the Supreme Court, through Chief Justice Lucas Bersamin, said:

"The elements of the crime of bigamy are as follows:

(1) that the offender has been legally married;

(2) that the marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code; (3) that he or she contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and

(4) that the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity.

Given the foregoing, one may be held liable for bigamy when the aforecited elements of the crime are present.

Yet, bigamy does not always entail the joint liability of two individuals.

As pronounced by the Supreme Court, through Associate Justice Salvador Esguerra, in the case of People of the Philippines v. Nepomuceno, Jr., GR L-40624, June 27, 1975:

"Appellant's contention that the crime of bigamy entails the joint liability of two persons who marry each other, while the previous marriage of one or the other is valid and subsisting is completely devoid of merit. Even a cursory scrutiny of Art. 349 of the Revised Penal Code will disclose that the crime of bigamy can be committed by one person who contracts a subsequent marriage while the former marriage is valid and subsisting. Bigamy is not similar to the crimes of adultery and concubinage, wherein the law (Art. 344, first and third pars., Revised Penal Code, and Sec. 4, Rule 110, Rules of Court) specifically requires that the culprits, if both are alive, should he prosecuted or included in the information. In the crime of bigamy, both the first and second spouses may be the offended parties depending on the circumstances, as when the second spouse married the accused without being aware of his previous marriage. Only if the second spouse had knowledge of the previous undissolved marriage of the accused could she be included in the information as a co-accused.

Bigamy is a public offense and a crime against status, while adultery and concubinage are private offenses and are crimes against chastity. In adultery and concubinage, pardon by the offended party will bar the prosecution of the case, which is not so in bigamy. It is, therefore, clear that bigamy is not similar to adultery or concubinage."

Thus, the offended party in the crime of bigamy may be the first or second spouse. The second spouse is an offended party if he or she has no knowledge of the previous undissolved marriage. Conversely, the second spouse can only be included in the information or complaint as co-accused in the crime of Bigamy if he or she had knowledge of the previous undissolved marriage at the time of their subsequent marriage.

Bigamy cannot be compared with Adultery or Concubinage because the latter are private offenses and classified as crimes against chastity, while the former is a public offense and is a crime against status.

Source: Manila Times

Divorce: Welcome to the 21st century

In a historic legislative move, the House of Representatives has passed House Bill (HB) 9349, also known as the “Absolute Divorce Act,” which aims to allow absolute divorce as a legal recourse for Filipino couples trapped in irreparably broken marriages.

For the longest time, the Philippines, where 80 percent of the population is Catholic, is known as the only country in the world — other than the Vatican — where divorce remains illegal.

For pro-divorce advocates in the Philippines, the absence of divorce as a legal option significantly hinders couples from severing ties and, most crucially, escaping violent and abusive relationships.

Although couples seeking to end their marriage can try annulment or declaration of marriage invalidity from courts, the process is slow and costly — starting from at least P100,000 — with no guaranteed outcome.

If the marriage was solemnized in church, the process of annulment could take even decades.

In some cases, couples who are desperate for quicker resolutions fall victim to online scams. Other couples, meanwhile, opt to live separately while remaining legally bound in long-dead marriages.

In a 131-109-20 vote, the House of Representatives approved on third and final reading the proposed Absolute Divorce Act, a bill allowing absolute divorce in the country.

The last time a House divorce bill hurdled final reading was in the 17th Congress, during the first half of former President Rodrigo Duterte’s administration.

However, the measure languished in the Senate.

The current Senate version of the divorce bill, filed by Senators Risa Hontiveros, Raffy Tulfo, Robin Padilla, Pia Cayetano, and Imee Marcos, has already been approved at the committee level last year.

What is the divorce bill all about?

Section 2 of the proposed Absolute Divorce Act states that while the government continues to value and protect marriage, it also provides a way for couples in “irreparably failed marriages” to get a divorce.

It stressed that the measure aims to help children avoid the stress of their parents’ constant fighting and gives divorced individuals the chance to remarry.

Under the Absolute Divorce Act, the following are considered grounds for absolute divorce:

• Physical violence or grossly abusive conduct directed against the petitioner, a common child, or a child of the petitioner.

• Physical violence or moral pressure to compel the petitioner to change religious or political affiliation.

• Attempt of the respondent to corrupt or induce the petitioner, a common child, or a child of the petitioner, to engage in prostitution or connivance in such corruption or inducement.

• Final judgment sentencing the respondent to imprisonment of more than six (6) years, even if pardoned.

• Drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, or chronic gambling of the respondent

• Homosexuality of the respondent.

• Contracting by the respondent of a subsequent bigamous marriage, whether in the Philippines or abroad.

• Marital infidelity or perversion or having a child with another person other than one’s spouse during the marriage, except when upon the mutual agreement of the spouses, a child is born to them through in vitro fertilization or a similar procedure or when the wife bears a child after being a victim of rape.

• Attempt by the respondent against the life of the petitioner, a common child or a child of the petitioner.

• Abandonment of petitioner by respondent without justifiable cause for more than one (1) year.

• When the spouses are legally separated by judicial decree for more than two (2) years, either spouse can petition the proper Family Court for an absolute divorce based on said judicial decree of legal separation.

The proposed Absolute Divorce Act not only allows spouses in hopelessly broken marriages to obtain a divorce through judicial procedures, but also addresses several key aspects:

• Includes provisions to ensure the best interests of children are protected, including care, custody, and support.

• Supports women’s rights by helping them escape abusive relationships and regain their dignity and self-esteem.

• Ensures that divorce proceedings are affordable and quick, especially for those needing court assistance.

• Introduces a sixty-day period for reconciliation efforts, except in cases involving violence.

• Recognizes valid foreign and church divorces without requiring additional legal processes.

• Provides court-appointed social workers, psychologists, and legal counsel to assist petitioners.

• Requires the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) to implement programs that strengthen marriage and family life.

What the divorce bill is not about

The proposed Absolute Divorce Act does not eliminate marriage; rather, it seeks to protect and preserve marriage while providing a remedy only for failed marriages, especially those that involve domestic or marital abuse.

While it offers divorce or legal separation as options for irreparably broken marriages, it does not promote divorce as the first choice. Section 12 of HB 9349 mandates a 60-day cooling-off period, during which the Family Court must make every effort to reunite and reconcile the spouses after the filing of the divorce petition.

“Upon expiration of the cooling-off period without the parties having reconciled, the court shall immediately commence trial and is mandated to decide the petition within one (1) year after the lapse of the sixty-day cooling-off period,” Section 12 of HB 9349 stated.

However, the cooling-off period does not apply in cases that involve acts of violence against women and their children (VAWC) under Republic Act No. 9262 or when there is an attempt against the life of the other spouse, a common child, or the petitioner’s child. It is also not required for petitions filed under summary judicial proceedings.

The proposed Absolute Divorce Act also ensures that divorce is:

• Not instant or automatic since it requires proper judicial proceedings and compliance with legal protocols.

• Attentive to children’s needs and ensures that the children’s rights and interests are protected during and after divorce.

• Not free for all. It ensures that the grant of absolute divorce is affordable and fees are waived only for court-assisted petitioners who qualify.

• Legally supervised to prevent collusion and coercion in divorce filings.

• Not disregarding property rights, ensuring the division and protection of conjugal properties and children’s inheritances.

In a statement, Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, the author of HB 9349, assured critics that a divorce law would not destroy marriages, emphasizing that divorce does not sever a marriage that has already long been dead.

“What will be before the Family Court is a cadaver of a marriage,” he said.

“Divorce is not the monster plaguing a marriage. It is marital infidelity, abandonment, violence, and cruelty, among others, which are the devils that destroy marriages,” he added.

Filipinos’ view on legalization of divorce

A 2017 survey by Social Weather Stations (SWS) revealed that five in 10 Filipinos believe that separated and irreconcilable married couples should be allowed to divorce and remarry.

The survey asked respondents whether “married couples who have already separated and cannot reconcile anymore” should be allowed to divorce “so that they can get legally married again.”

Of those surveyed, 53 percent agreed with the statement, with 30 percent saying they “strongly agree” and 23 percent “somewhat agree.” On the other hand, 32 percent disagreed, including 10 percent who “somewhat disagree” and 22 percent who “strongly disagree.”

Data from SWS also indicated a significant increase in the percentage of Filipinos who support making divorce legal for married couples unable to reconcile.

In 2005, 43 percent of adults (24 percent strongly agree, 19 percent somewhat agree) supported this idea. By 2011, this had risen to 50 percent (27 percent strongly agree, 23 percent somewhat agree).

The trend continued upward, peaking in 2014 with 60 percent (38 percent strongly agree, 22 percent somewhat agree). Though there was a slight decline in 2015 to 48 percent, support remained strong, with 53 percent in 2016 and 53 percent in 2017.

According to data from Statista, Filipinos, when surveyed, highlighted several reasons for supporting the legalization of divorce in the Philippines. These reasons include:

• 51 percent believe divorces can solve marital problems.

• 18 percent think divorce gives separated individuals a chance to remarry.

• 9 percent notes that divorce is globally accepted.

• 9 percent find divorce to be less expensive than annulment.

• 6 percent argue that we are living in modern times, implying the need for updated laws.

The data also indicated that 7 percent of surveyed Filipinos believe that no one should ever get a divorce.

‘Anti-family, anti-marriage, anti-children’?

In a statement, the CBCP expressed disappointment over the House of Representatives’ approval of the divorce bill.

Addressing concerns about the measure, ACT Teachers Rep. France Castro stressed that the bill “would not destroy the sanctity of marriage”. Rather, it acknowledges that “some marriages just simply get to a point where it becomes irreparable.”

Divorce as a ‘life raft’

According to Lagman, the measure is not meant for everyone, as the vast majority of Filipino marriages are happy, lasting, and loving. These couples, he said, do not need the divorce law.

Castro explained that the measure provides a “much-needed option for women and families trapped in broken marriages, particularly those involving violence.”

According to the Philippine Statistics Authority, approximately one in six Filipino women aged 15-49 have experienced physical, sexual, or emotional violence from their current or most recent husband or intimate partner.

“It is easy to paint Filipino families as perfect, devoid of any form of conflict and abuse. But in reality, political, economic, and social realities strain marital relationships,” said Gabriela Rep. Arlene Brosas.

“Many women face inequalities and violence that undermine the ideals of marriage,” Brosas continued.

Dr. Anna Cristina Tuazon, a psychologist and associate professor at the University of the Philippines (UP) Diliman, believes that divorce isn’t what destroys happy marriages.

Instead, it serves as a life raft for those trapped in marriages that have long been dead.

Tuazon compared the absence of legal divorce to a building without emergency exits, stressing the lack of an essential option for those in desperate situations.

“Imagine there’s a fire, but the building owner didn’t put in emergency exits because he ‘does not believe in it’ and that you were expected to keep managing the fire, not escape it,” she said.

“Imagine still a building infested with toxic mold but that you were not permitted to evacuate because others couldn’t fathom why you don’t have the willpower to tough it out,” she added.

“Most people hopefully will not need to use emergency exits in their lifetime. And you’ll be glad it’s there when you need it,” she said.

She also explained that to ensure the success of a marriage, couples should be given resources and support to help them adapt rather than simply being mandated to stay together.

“If you love someone, you don’t chain them to you; them choosing to stay is a greater sense of emotional security than locking them in a divorce-less marriage,” said Tuazon.

Source: Inquirer