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

Only potential pitfall I see is if the court request any foreign documents to be apostatized in the home country (this has replaced 'red ribboning' by the overseas Philippines Embassy) to prove they are genuine. Sure to be more though as you progress. Good luck.

 

In Nevada if both parties are in agreement it's easy to file your own divorce case, they even provide kits . However, I have filed many other cases to defend myself; strangely enough, I somehow managed to win all of them. More likely it was because the attorneys I was up against got cocky and didn't think they had to try so hard to beat me.

I couldn't have done this one mainly cuz I would've had to stay in Nevada until the verdict. So I retained an attorney. Long story short, my so-called "simple 4 month case" took 21 months... But even with the excessive delay, I'm in a much safer place than if I stayed at home. Since the pandemic started, I have not been able to reach any of my old friends! That's scary.

Here, every clerk's office is different. Most of them aren't attorneys and like most people here they don't usually know the laws. So they have a "cheat book" they refer to. These books are rarely updated, so it's a safe bet most won't even know about the PSA Memorandum, and even more won't believe it even after reading it. In fact, I'm sure most of the clerks in PSA won't know about it either.

I already went through a lengthy email discussion with 5 different clerks offices two years ago to no avail (not using my real email address of course ). No one knew any answers to any questions! This is part of the reason for the pleading paper.

Most people pay more attention when a document looks legal. That's also the reason for the length. I'm basically listing everything the judge in a Recognition case would ask for.

So the new notary rules are both a blessing and a curse, depending on the particular clerk you get.

Like I said before, fortunately there are a lot of towns to try to get the license in around here

I appreciate you taking the time to look at it. I spotted a typo. So I'll correct it the next time I can't had asleep at night . Works better than counting sheep!

 

Hi, Mike,

After I sent my reply to your message I had a feeling there was something I was missing. Then I reread your comment more carefully. It reminded me of something important I was dealing with way back in 2016 which might help explain why your experiences are so different from mine. So I've edited my original reply. Sorry for the length.

A lot of Americans get their info about the Philippines by contacting the Philippine Embassy. However, the Philippine Embassy is there to help Filipinos, NOT AMERICANS!

The Philippine Embassy is not run by either the BI (Bureau of Immigration) or the PSA. Instead, they are run by the DFA. The DFA is the Philippine Dept of Foreign Affairs. The DFA is the agency that issues passports to FILIPINOS, like the State Dept in the US.

DFA technically has no authority to deal with foreigners; only with their own citizens. However the Philippine Embassy likes to stick their noses where they don't belong, they like butting into immigration affairs, and PSA affairs; however they have no authority over either! In both cases they tell the foreigners false information

They also tell the US State Dept that AMERICANS need to contact them before traveling to the Philippines because their job is to pre-screen potential tourists; another blatant lie.

As a result, the State Dept tells Americans they need to purchase their Philippine entry VISA from the Philippine Embassy for $400 before even setting foot inside the Philippines. However, this is also false.

Americans get the first 30 days in the Philippines free when they get their Visa upon arrival! The State Dept knows this is false, but their real job is to try and keep Americans from traveling, so they hope the false info will scare people into not traveling. Of course with the current Pandemic all bets are off.

The Philippine Embassy will also tell you if you're planning to apply for a 13A you need to go to the Embassy in Los Angeles to start the procedure before being allowed to set foot inside the Philippines. Another blatant lie!

Then they will give you a nonsense list of requirements that will set you back some $10-20K! But that's only what the Embassy will get.

Then they will give you a ridiculous list of things a doctor will have to check you for. IF you can even find a doctor who will do all of these unnecessary tests he will probably charge you between $10-50k! Even worse, none of these tests are covered by insurance.

It's the Embassies themselves who are trying to Red Ribbon stuff when they have no authority over marriages, divorces, separations or anullments that take place in the US.

There's a reason why they try to get involved in other agency issues and offer nonsense expensive services. There's also a reason they changed the so-called Red Ribboning services to Apostatizing services all for a highly inflated price.

But before I go into that, do you even know what "Apostatizing" really is? Look it up! Here's the definition:

• "APOSTATIZE" MEANS TO TOTALLY ABANDON OR REJECT ONE'S OWN RELIGION. IT CAN ALSO BE USED IN A SLIGHTLY MORE GENERAL WAY TO MEAN TO TOTALLY ABANDON OR REJECT ONE'S PRINCIPLES, CAUSE, PARTY, OR OTHER ORGANIZATION. THE ACT OF DOING SO IS CALLED APOSTASY, SOMEONE WHO DOES SO CAN BE CALLED AN APOSTATE

So some perfect examples of groups encouraging Apostasy are the Catholic Church, the NPA recruiters and the CPP recruiters...

Now you tell me exactly what any of that has to do with to helping someone get a foreign divorce decree recognized in the Philippines! The name is exactly what it sounds like, it's the Catholic church trying to get involved in your FOREIGN DIVORCE.

Actually, it's also the Catholic Church's subtle way of trying to imply that if you plan on visiting or living in the Philippines you would be better off becoming a Catholic. It's also their way of implying that EVERY FILIPINO IS CATHOLIC AND THE CHURCH RUNS THE COUNTRY. Of course, today, this is all false. Against the Church's strong objections the Freedom of Religion law was finally passed; as well as the Family Code which recognizes both, Foreign divorces and Muslim divorces

Anyway to the answer the question about the other expensive services, PHILIPPINE Embassy staff in the US can easily earn over TEN TIMES WHAT FILIPINOS earn at home.

Minimum wage in the Philippines is only ₱50/ hour ($1 USD!), but the Embassy personnel can easily earn $10/hour - THAT'S ₱500/HOUR, and up! Being a third-world country, this can put a serious strain on the financial resources of the Philippines.

In order to afford these wages, the DFA tells their people to sell Visas, to sell unnecessary Red Ribboning/apostatizing services, to sell pre-processing 13A Visas, etc.

None of these services are within the scope of their authority since their authority is ONLY OVER FILIPINO CITIZENS, but, again most foreigners don't know how the Philippine govt works so they believe the lies and think the Philippine Embassy is the only place to go.

By excessively (over)charging for free and paid services of other agencies, and creating unnecessary services, they help fund the DFA's excessive payroll.

(This is just one of the biggest problems poorer third world countries run into. They cannot pay their Embassy personnel who are working in other countries the same rates they pay their coworkers at home, ESPECIALLY if the Embassy personnel are living and working in a country with a high cost of living!)

Additionally, Embassy staff need to have a more upscale appearance. They cannot look like a street vendor or one of the under-paid people dishing out baboy food at the local Agri-Vet. They have to dress up nicely, and clothes, ESPECIALLY CLOTHES BOUGHT IN THE US, are very expensive.

This was all explained to me by the head of a BI satellite office; this person was also a supervisor who was trained in Manila, and even served as a supervisor in Manila while training replacements for herself so she could go back to the satellite office in her hometown.

We were chatting in the office I and I asked her about the conflicting requirements for a 13A Visa. She didn't know about the Embassy's requirements, so I showed her the printed page capture of Embassy's list.

She told me the real requirements, which are quite simple, and then asked if she could have the print because she wanted to tell her supervisors what the Embassies were doing, so I gave it to her. (Maybe I should see if the Embassy's web page has changed).

That's when I started reading more about each agency, and looking up the real laws.

One of my Filipino friends I've known over 5 years has commented many times that I seem to know more about the laws, agencies, procedures, and politics here better than most Filipinos; and even better he does, and he was raised here; he's also highly educated. I told him I felt it was a very good idea to know as much as I could about a place I was planning to move to when I retired.

It's funny, but, quite often he'll ask me his questions first to avoid the excessive red tape the Philippines learned from the US :p

So all of these phony document recognizing services are being done by the DFA, an agency that has no AUTHORITY to deal with citizens of other countries; and some of the clergy from the Catholic church, a religious organization that is supposed to stay out of political and Governmental affairs due to the Philippines freedom of religion laws.

It's beginning to look like I'll need to post my own blog once I get this all straightened out to prevent other foreigners from being taken advantage of. That'll be much later though .

 

Some excellent work on all your postings. Wish you the best of luck in everything.

My experience of the legal system was in the UK when I did the Conveyancing for Sale and Purchase of houses. The other party's solicitors always tried to refuse working with me as I am not legally qualified (what they meant, of course, is that they want to keep lucrative easy work in their greedy hands). I just told the the other party that if their solicitor will not work with me then I will find another buyer/seller - it always worked. Documentation for selling a house took me about 30 minutes! At that time it was about £300 for a solicitor. Purchasing is more complex and more risky (but solicitors do it badly in some cases anyway).

So well done to you.

 

From what I've been told the UK legal system, while being the basis for most of the legal systems around the world, it is just like the British aristocracy; very stuffy, unyielding, and perpetually old and outdated. It's the old "if it was good enough for my great-great-great-great-great-grandfather, it's still good enough for me" like these companies who STILL only accept cash or checks (like the Family Court Services in LV).

So I'm not surprised they would screw up a sale or purchase of property in this day and age. The solicitor (accurate name; sounds more like a prostitute, or ambulance-chaser ) probably thought it WAS supposed to be done in the good ol' fashion 1800's way

 

Incidentally, one of the PRECEDENTS I listed in my Affidavit was from a 1985 case the SC ruled on; G.R. No. L-68470 - Van Dorn vs Romillo.


In this case, a Kano and a Filipina got married in Hong Kong. Later on, the Kano got a DIVORCE in Las Vegas. When filing for divorce he retained attornies and gave them specific instructions, one of which was no community property. The Divorce was granted and clearly stated there was no community property.

Shortly afterwards, he tried to claim that a business in Manila owned by his ex was community property and demanded his share. He based his claim on the old Civil Code which was a morals clause refusing to allow the FILIPINO spouse to ever become divorced. In essence, he was trying to pull a scam on his ex (mis)using the Civil Code's no divorce stand.

The ex filed a case with RTC to block the scam based on the terms of the decree from Nevada. RTC dismissed the case choosing not to rule on it (typical for them). The SC ruled on the case and clearly stated that, since the Nevada divorce decree was legal and binding on the Kano ex, AND HIS DIVORCE WAS RECOGNIZED IN ANY STATE OF THE US, IT WAS, THEREFORE AUTOMATICALLY VALID HERE IN THE PHILIPPINES AND, SINCE HE WAS DIVORCED AND THE DIVORCE SAID THERE WAS NO COMMUNITY PROPERTY, HE COULD NOT SUE HIS EX FOR COMMUNITY PROPERTY EITHER IN THE US, OR HERE.

This case was 2 years before the Family Code was put into effect and probably was one of incidents to prompt it's writing.

Here's the judge's ACTUAL ruling. It is a clear testimony stating that the Foreign divorce was automatically valid and nothing further was needed to prove it's validity here.

Now with Article 26 of the Family Code sharing a similar concept, it prove}s that all so-called "Red Ribboning" or "Apostasizing" actions are not supported by the law and are not necessary; and, therefore are nothing but scams preying on foreigners.
=====
[G.R. No. L-68470. October 8, 1985.] ALICE REYES VAN DORN, Petitioner, v. HON. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR., as Presiding Judge of Branch CX, Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Region Pasay City, and RICHARD UPTON, Respondents.
§§§§§
There can be no question as to the validity of that Nevada divorce in any of the States of the United States. The decree is binding on private respondent as an American citizen. For instance, private respondent cannot sue petitioner, as her husband, in any State of the Union. What he is contending in this case is that the divorce is not valid and binding in this jurisdiction, the same being contrary to local law and public policy.

It is true that owing to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code, only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy against absolute divorces the same being considered contrary to our concept of public policy and morality. However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law.

In this case, the divorce in Nevada released private respondent from the marriage from the standards of American law, under which divorce dissolves the marriage. As stated by the Federal Supreme Court of the United States in Atherton v. Atherton, 45 L. Ed. 794, 799:jgc:

"The purpose and effect of a decree of divorce from the bond of matrimony by a court of competent jurisdiction are to change the existing status or domestic relation of husband and wife, and to free them both from the bond. The marriage tie, when thus severed as to one party, ceases to bind either.

A husband without a wife, or a wife without a husband, is unknown to the law. When the law provides, in the nature of a penalty, that the guilty party shall not marry again, that party, as well as the other, is still absolutely freed from the bond of the former marriage."

Thus, pursuant to his national law, private respondent is no longer the husband of petitioner. He would have no standing to sue in the case below as petitioner’s husband entitled to exercise control over conjugal assets. As he is bound by the Decision of his own country’s Court, which validly exercised jurisdiction over him, and whose decision he does not repudiate, he is estopped by his own representation before said Court from asserting his right over the alleged conjugal property.

 

Incidentally, there is no such thing as Apostatizing a document.

What the person meant to say was that certain foreign documents need to have an APOSTILLE CERTIFICATE to be used in Foreign countries that are members of the Hague Apostille Convention. The Philippines is a member of the Hague Apostille Convention.

However, there is a list of documents that need Apostille Certificates, and divorce decrees do not seem to appear on that list.

The Secretary of State of Nevada offers Apostille services, so I'm waiting for a reply from them. I'll keep you posted

 

The ac

The act of adding the apostille certificate (a smallish square of paper) IS apostatizing and unique to the document in question, but lets not split hairs, eh?

 

It's hardly splitting hairs, Mike. We're talking about two totally different words. Apostille is the official term used for Authenticating a document for use in other countries. It is usually issued by the country the document originated from.

Apostatizing is the act of giving up one's religion, or cause. Read the definition.

The international community has called the process of authenticating foreign documents Apostille since 1961 when the Hague Apostille Convention was formed.

Apostatizing is a religious term which has nothing to do with the law. The secular definition means giving up one's loyalty to his or her country, or, even abandoning a sports team.

However, there's no legal definition associating it with authenticating foreign documents.

Something else I learned was that, according to the DFA, the term Red Ribboning WAS still being used right up until the Philippines joined the convention.

Perhaps the local bakery chain "Red Ribbon" simply didn't like their name being used in connection with divorces; similar to Hormel's official objection to the use of their Spam brand to signify unwanted email and junk mail. Both companies felt it would hurt business.

So, maybe Red Ribboning was unofficially stopped, and the Apostatizing term was chosen for the Religious reasons I've already mentioned, AND because the two words Apostatize and Apostille sounded enough alike to confuse people, and to make their procedure sound legitimate.

For more info on Apostille, go to either the DFA'S website here, or the website for the Secretary of State of your home state if you're from the US.

If you're not from the US, then I have no idea what catchy term your country uses at home to authenticate their documents, but the international community officially calls it an Apostille, despite what some person called it when you asked them.

It's interesting to note that, while the UK IS a member of the convention, Canada is NOT, so they can designate their own form of authorization, and call it whatever they want.

There are still some countries who are simply not interested in the rest of the world (such as Canada), so they have chosen not to join the Convention. Getting a Foreign document accepted in those countries is like fighting an uphill battle.

The Philippines did not become a member of the convention until 2019. So if someone from the Philippines called it Apostatizing, it was probably before 2019, and it was the way the church could have a little, self-righteous laugh at your expense.

This use of the term Apostatize sounds similar to "the Scarlet Letter" (also similar to the mark of Cain) whereby, in the old days the elders would literally paint a red letter "A" on an adulterers forehead for the whole world to see.

Therefore, "Apostatizing" a foreign divorce decree was, probably, their secret form of a 'scarlet letter' branding you an adulterer. Think of grade school where someone would tape a sign saying "kick me" to the back of the victim's shirt.

The current administration made sure the Philippines was a member country to eliminate private individuals taking it upon themselves to create their own phony methods of Authentication. I'm guessing it is probably a part of the Anti Fixer campaign. After all, how could someone in the Philippines authenticate a legal document from the US?

Here are the official definitions I'm referring to:

-------
"Apostatize definition, to commit apostasy"

"Apostasy (/əˈpɒstəsi/; Greek: ἀποστασία apostasía, "a defection or revolt") is the formal disaffiliation from, abandonment of, or renunciation of a religion by a person. It can also be defined within the broader context of embracing an opinion that is contrary to one's previous religious beliefs. One who undertakes apostasy is known as an apostate. Undertaking apostasy is called apostatizing (or apostasizing – also spelled apostacizing)

Occasionally, the term is also used metaphorically to refer to the renunciation of a non-religious belief or cause, such as a political party, social movement, or sports team."

---------

Apostille Convention

The Hague Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents, the Apostille Convention, or the Apostille Treaty, is an international treaty drafted by the Hague Conference on Private International Law. It specifies the modalities through which a document issued in one of the signatory countries can be certified for legal purposes in all the other signatory states. A certification under the terms of the convention is called an apostille or Hague apostille. It is an international certification comparable to a notarisation in domestic law, and normally supplements a local notarisation of the document. If the convention applies between two countries, such an apostille is sufficient to certify a document's validity, and removes the need for double-certification, by the originating country and then by the receiving country.

Procedure

Apostilles are affixed by Competent Authorities designated by the government of a state which is party to the convention. A list of these authorities is maintained by the Hague Conference on Private International Law. Examples of designated authorities are embassies, ministries, courts or (local) governments.
-----------

 

You're quite right. I used the wrong word in my original post, causing confusion. The act of attaching an apostille is to render it 'apostillized' ...not sure why spellcheck does not fancy it though. This was my intention to flag as a potential trip-fall if you were using any foreign documents, but seems you've covered that angle. Never heard of the other word before, but the 'Mark of Cain' sounds a bit nasty though.