Marriage Visa Change in Notarization Requirements for Legal Capacity to Contract Marriage

I am of the understanding if your marriage in the Philippines was officially registered here, you would not be allowed a marriage license here. I heard some went to Hong Kong to marry so they wouldn’t face this, but mot verified.

 

If you read the Family Code of the Philippines literally everything about marriage is listed there. Divorces are covered by Article 26.

You are thinking about the old Civil Code. Article 15 of the Civil Code was a MORALS rule rather than a rule to protect Filipinos. The Family Code was written by former President Cory Aquino and put into effect in 1987, the same year as the new Constitution. Article 26 remedied the unfair and discriminatory treatment of Filipinos who were married to foreigners who legally obtained divorces in their home countries.

Unfortunately, as I said in the last post, there's a whole lot of misinformation here because most people don't even bother to read the laws. They just make up stuff or spread rumors.

A perfect example are the students at UP Manila who are always protesting something. Virtually everything they protest against has already been remedied by the Constitution back in 1987.

The majority of Filipinos don't even know about either the Constitution or the Family Code. Just do a search for both and they are easy to access and read.

 

I don’t know if the prior post was referring to my post, but before and after I married here 10 yrs ago, the NSO had to verify that neither my to-be wife or I had a previous marriage in the Philippines and then entered an official record once we married. If not, we could not receive a marriage licence.

 

The problem lies with the simple fact that there are so many places you can go to get a marriage license in the Philippines and every single office follows their own particular brand of rules despite whatever the laws actually require. As has been already mentioned in here, some people simply took their Affidavits, CENOMAR and certified Divorce decree and were issued a license. Some places require a lengthy court case with RTC and then a lengthy battle with PSA to update CENOMARS.

Also keep in mind that, as times change, so do attitudes and interpretations of the laws. What was an ironclad rule 10 years ago might not be a problem today. Laws change, people change, interpretations change, and situations change. Look at the US where most states now recognize gay marriages. Here that won't happen soon because the legal definition of marriage directly links it to procreation and providing for the continuation of the family unit. So it's more than simply a social contract.

Additionally, just like everywhere else in the world, laws are often subject to local interpretation. So, in reality, it's like Dirty Harry often said, "Feeling lucky?

That's why I commented that, fortunately, there were quite a few LGUs in my region. If one has squirrelly requirements, we simply go to the next one until we finally find a cooperative one... Saying a few prayers before going wouldn't hurt either

Whenever you get frustrated with the Philippines legal system just remember who taught them everything they know, THE USA!

 

Not strictly true. The basis of Philippine law extends from Spanish rule (1565 to 1898) - see link for clarification.

https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/6576315.pdf

"For the greater part of these 333-odd years, the Philippines, like all the other Spanish colonies, was chiefly governed under three main laws: the Siete Partidas, the Nueva Recopilacion and the Recopilacion de las Leyes de las Indias. The operation of these laws - taken separately or in relation to one another - was never very clear. The result was, frequently, confusion, inefficiency, corruption, and delay."

Sound familiar?

 

I'm not referring to history. I'm referring to the current laws. We should all be aware that all countries that (used to) prohibit divorce did so because those countries are or were controlled by the Catholic Church. Currently the Philippines is THE ONLY COUNTRY IN THE ENTIRE WORLD THAT STILL PROHIBITS DIVORCE. The other major country was Italy, but they have long-since changed those laws.

The reason why there are so few clear answers and so much confusion regarding Philippine Law is exactly what I said in my previous reply. Here, everybody has their own ideas of what they think the law says, but they have never even read the actual laws. Plus, most people simply do not even know where to look for the laws in order to read them, and the majority of them don't even know some of the laws even exist!

To this day, the ONLY people telling you that filing a Recognition of Foreign Decree case with RTC is mandatory are lawyers. But they are not telling you this because it's true. Here in the Philippines, unlike in the US and other countries, a person IS REQUIRED TO HIRE AN ATTORNEY TO BE REPRESENTED IN COURT; THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FILING A "PRO SE" CASE WHEREBY ONE REPRESENTS THEMSELVES! SO THE ATTORNEYS USE (AND ABUSE) THE IGNORANCE OF THE PEOPLE TO DRUM UP BUSINESS!

Additionally, most of the lawyers that claim to be able to help you online are phonies.

Back to your reply, also keep in mind that the SPANISH LEGAL SYSTEM ONLY SUPPORTED THE NOBILITY, NOT THE COMMON PERSON. THAT'S STILL TRUE HERE.

RTC regularly refuses to handle cases forcing the people to wait in line with the Philippines Supreme Court. Then, when the SC rules in their favor, RTC STILL DENIES THEIR CASE. Then the person has to go BACK to the SC, and the SC ACTUALLY HAS TO THREATEN THE LOWER COURT TO MAKE THEM COMPLY.

Every legal case here that I have read has followed this exact pattern. RTC thinks they are the highest court in the land, and that the SC has no jurisdiction over them. They also think Foreigners have no "LEGAL STANDING" in their court and, thereby, CANNOT FILE CASES even though the SC has ruled otherwise.

The Spaniards have been gone for a long time and no longer control the legal system, people who want to keep the common person from getting Justice control it. This is also why there is the PAO - PUBLIC ATTORNEY OFFICE for the people to go to.

So, as I said, getting the legal system here to help you is a simple case of "being lucky" .

Also as I said, most Americans here should find the problems with the legal system very familiar; we taught the Philippines everything we know about red tape and lack of service, and they are quick studies !

 

Is this an intentional ploy by government to ensure that attorneys and the like have a good income stream - in the UK I buy a car, for example, by agreement with the seller and there is no need to get anything notarized. And, controversially for some, would this have any links to the degree of Freemasonry within the legal profession?

 

Well, simply put, the Philippine courts do not allow pro se cases (self-representation). Because of this, it is required to retain an attorney to file a case. As such, lawyers prey on the poor and uneducated people by telling them that filing certain cases is a legal requirement when it's really not. They are just trying to make money.

I've noticed something interesting though. The majority of attorneys requiring nonsense cases to be filed are found on the internet. Those in an office and not online don't want to waste their time (and reputation) filing stupid, unnecessary cases.

One online attorney claims it's a requirement to file a case to recognize a foreign court decree whenever a foreigner divorces a Filipino spouse. But Article 26 says NO SUCH THING?

"ARTICLE 26 (2): WHERE A MARRIAGE BETWEEN A FILIPINO CITIZEN AND A FOREIGNER IS VALIDLY CELEBRATED AND A DIVORCE IS THEREAFTER VALIDLY OBTAINED ABROAD BY THE ALIEN SPOUSE CAPACITATING HIM OR HER TO MARRY, THE FILIPINO SPOUSE SHALL HAVE THE CAPACITY TO REMARRY UNDER PHILIPPINE LAW."

Do you see anywhere in that Article whereby it states anything about the necessity to file any cases to have the divorce recognized? I sure don't. Former President Cory Aquino was very precise in her wording of this legal code just to make sure there was no confusion. In fact that article was originally written in a very confusing manner BY AN ATTORNEY WHO LOVED USING CONFUSING LEGALESE-STYLE WORDING. IT WAS IMMEDIATELY AMENDED BY EO227 TO IT'S CURRENT SIMPLE WORDING!

Regarding notaries or not, that falls into the exact same category as 'which side of the road do you drive on'. The sole difference there is which nation helped found them, US or UK? In fact, they're are long lists regarding US vs UK and they date back well over 200 years and even include trivial matters like coffee vs tea .

I, for one, an happy I can get the Affidavit notarized ANYWHERE instead only at the Embassy or Consulate. $50 PLUS A TWO WEEK QUARANTINE PERIOD (POSSIBLY ON BOTH ENDS OF THE JOURNEY) IS WAY TOO HIGH OF A PRICE TO PAY JUST TO GET MARRIED! In Las Vegas, you just wait in line, fill out a form, swear an oath you're not related, and you get your license. A quick trip down the street to the strip and there are literally thousands of wedding chapels claiming Elvis got married there . In fact a mutual divorce is a lot easier there too

As for Freemasonry that's another topic entirely with it's own lengthy set of conspiracy theories and, coincidentally (? Or not) it dates back to the start of Catholicism. I just file that under the heading of "don't get me started!"

 

How many times have you been married?

 

WAY, WAY TOO MANY! Actually only 5; two White girls, two Chinese girls, and one Filipina. The ironic thing is that even though I tried very hard to find someone totally different each time, it's like they all ended up being THE SAME WOMAN! .

I've subsequently divorced each and every one of them. I could tell you funny stories, but I dislike reliving the past, even for the sake of humor

In any case that's five more divorces than I EVER EXPECTED TO HAVE! I wanted to get married once and have the marriage last.

Most American women these days find divorce to be a much better/easier option than trying to make a marriage work.

The Filipina totally lied during the two years we were supposedly getting to know each other. I even told her from the start I wasn't rich, and that I wanted to retire here. However, her friends had told her that ALL KANOS WERE FILTHY RICH, and the ones who claimed they weren't were EVEN RICHER!

So when she found out I had told her nothing but the truth, I was the jerk because I didn't live up to her expectations (I think those are called "pipe dreams" because it's what you get after smoking a pipeful of your favorite hallucinogen!) .

In any case, I should have listened better; especially when she said, "I'm a very good actress!". Unfortunately, acting when one is not on stage is actually called LYING .

I was always fond of George Strait's song "All My Exes Live In Texas" off his Ocean Front Property album, even though NONE OF THEM LIVE IN TEXAS. However, I never expected to live out the song .

The first divorce was completed in Texas even though she was, and still is in Arizona. The other four divorces were in Las Vegas.

This was why one of my earliest questions about the "Affidavit in Lieu of" was if ALL the marriages/divorces needed to be listed.

But the general consensus, even from the honest attorneys, is that each subsequent marriage automatically validates the divorce preceding it, so only the last one is actually needed to be listed unless others were on the CENOMAR.


Anyway, that's about it. It's the final divorce we're dealing with here.

I found a legal forum run by one of these phony online attorneys. He made a point of telling me how complex the Philippines legal system is and that's why Foreigners cannot understand it. I'll bet he doesn't like my reply.

I gave him examples about how SIMPLE the laws are and made it clear that the only reason anything is complex and confusing here is because lawyers never follow the law. Instead they (mis)interpret and argue the law while trying to fill their pockets.

He was another advocate of the recognition of decree case being mandatory in all things according to the Family Code. I printed Article 26 (2) in all caps and said, "WHERE DO YOU SEE ANY REQUIREMENT TO FILE A RECOGNITION OF DECREE CASE BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ONE! THIS is what makes your laws seem so d*mn confusing; LAWYERS LIKE YOU!" I also told him to feel free and post my email reply in his forum .

He also is one of those idiots who thinks the SC permanently removed the RTCs refusal to allow foreigners to file cases. However, as I pointed out, it was NOT a legal precedent case applying to foreigners everywhere.

Instead, it only handled one specific case whereby the foreigner was filing the case to help his Filipina ex have the divorce recognized. It wasn't filed to benefit himself. That's why the SC overruled the RTC's refusal to hear the case.

Lawyers are always looking for precedents so they can remove or bypass inconvenient laws. The problem is that, to them, if the judge sneezes in one case they expect the judges to sneeze in EVERY CASE!

You cannot effectively compare apples to oranges or dragonfruits and expect them to be the same!