"Affidavit in Lieu of a Certificate of Legal

[HaroldC]

Capacity to Marry"

Just found this on Department of State site, no dates on page-

http://travel.state.gov/philippines_marriage.html

SPECIAL PROCEDURES FOR THOSE WHO HAVE NEVER MET THE FIANCE/FIANCEE:

If you have never previously met your fiancé/fiancée, it may be advisable to take copies of your written correspondence and telephone bills to document the validity of your relationship to the consular officer at the U.S. Embassy in Manila. This may prevent refusal of the notarial service in connection with the issuance of your Affidavit in Lieu of a Certificate of Legal Capacity to Marry.

This is not mentioned at Manila Embassy site, dated 07/28/2003-

http://usembassy.state.gov/posts/rp1/wwwh3317.html

Anyone who has done this recently in Manila, do I have to worry about establishing validity of relationship at that point?

(This would make no sense because, as I understand it, the document is not specific- so one could easily show proof of relationship with one lady and then file for a marriage license with another, yes?)

[Bob S]

... in response to "Affidavit in Lieu of a Certificate..., posted by HaroldC on Sep 5, 2003

...would anyone want to become fianced to someone they've never met in person?  Hopefully such idiocy doesn't apply to any of the gentlemen on THIS board.

[surfscum]

... in response to Why in the he!!..., posted by Bob S on Sep 5, 2003

As I understand it, this is for those rare cases of pre-arranged marriages. This is common in Indian culture, for example. From what I have read, you also need to state why you may not see your bride before the wedding, for religious and/or cultural reasons.

[Ray]

... in response to Why in the he!!..., posted by Bob S on Sep 5, 2003

Hi Bob,

In all fairness to Harold, I believe that he said that he wasn’t engaged and wouldn’t be until he visits and meets the girl and her family first.

Some people get engaged a day or two after meeting without any previous period of correspondence. Others correspond and communicate with each other almost daily for several years and agree to become engaged on a ‘contingency’ basis even before they meet. Which couple is guilty of “idiocy”, the one that didn’t meet in person first?

I don’t think it’s constructive to call someone an “idiot” because they don’t follow any logical procedure to finding a mate. I remember Houndog calling tneal an idiot because he didn’t have a “plan” or “do his homework” before he met his fiancee and married her. From reports I’ve heard, Tom’s marriage has worked out a heck of a lot better, so I guess the laugh’s on Houndog. Some folks are just more adventurous and are more willing to take a chance than most of us. That doesn’t mean that they are idiots. As long as two consenting adults make a conscious decision to marry and are fully aware of the consequences, then I don’t have any problem with that personally. Advising someone to go slow and not rush into such an important decision as marriage is always good advice, but I don’t think the name-calling is appropriate.

I know a Fil-Am couple who married 4 days after meeting and had a successful marriage for over 14 years and raised 3 wonderful children. Then there are the couples who spend years getting to know each other or even live together and then can’t make their marriage last for a year. Who can say which method is ‘better’?

Just my $.02,

Ray

[Peter Lee]

... in response to Re: Why in the he!!..., posted by Ray on Sep 5, 2003

I agree double dito's to you Ray

[HaroldC]

... in response to Why in the he!!..., posted by Bob S on Sep 5, 2003

I know one Filipina, for sure- and I am certain there are or have been many others like her- who wants to become 'fianced' (I assume you mean 'engaged', English teacher.) to someone she's never met in person. Are these women idiots? Would only a gentleman be so defined?

I am not an idiot. I am a Boy Scout, so to speak- just being prepared. Since I must spend a night in Manila on my way to Midanao and there is a good chance I will become 'fianced' to someone I will then have met, taking care of said bureaucratic formality could save me a journey, or, more importantly, a ten-day delay waiting for a marriage license on a later trip (ultimately culminating in a longer honeymoon). If I don't need the document I am sure I can find another use for it.

[Bob S]

... in response to Calm down, young fella., posted by HaroldC on Sep 5, 2003

They are extremely clever.  Whether the guy turns out to be a gentleman or a bum (in which case the woman can easily dump him and stay in America), she's got a win-win situation.  Though if he turns out to be an abusive scumbag, she ought to know beforehand, and that requires a lot of personal face time.  But if her sole goal is to get to America, for which she is willing to endure anything, even that doesn't matter.

In a land and culture that permits quick and easy divorce, a sensible man or woman would want to spend sufficient face time to get to know their potential mate before investing the time, effort, money, and emotional commitment to become married.  If there are medical or religious reasons prohibiting this, well, you just gotta make a blind leap of faith.  Good luck.

It's been said here a hundred times (hyperbole?), "don't fall in love with a photo!"  If the couple is capable of meeting in person (he travels to her country or vice versa) prior to making any commitments but opt not to out of laziness or stinginess, then IMNTBHO, one or both are engaging in idiocy.  Having engaged in multiple and various forms of idiocy MYSELF, I know whereof I speak.

Note: as you are actually going there to meet someone in person, neither the previously noted document nor my diatribe apply to you.  Once you have photos of you and your GF together, you will be set.  Why would you advocate that others attempt a risky course of action that you are sensibly taking precautionary steps to avoid? (That's a rhetorical question BTW.)

~~
And yes I do mean "fianced".  Type "become fianced" into your web browser and see the hits and usage.  It is used as noun, verb (past tense), and adjective to both engaged people and joined financial business situations.

[Ray]

... in response to Calm down, young fella., posted by HaroldC on Sep 5, 2003

Harold,

If you do obtain a marriage license for use on a later trip, keep in mind that the license is valid for 4 months (I think).

Ray

[Peter Lee]

... in response to Re: Calm down, young fella., posted by Ray on Sep 5, 2003

Yes I ask in the semiar how long the License was good for and they told me 4 months.  Maricel later didn't like that I ask that coz it showed I didn't want to marry right away.

[HaroldC]

... in response to Re: Calm down, young fella., posted by Ray on Sep 5, 2003

FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES full text:

http://www.chanrobles.com/executiveorderno209.htm

[Kreeger]

... in response to Re: Calm down, young fella., posted by Ray on Sep 5, 2003

...Technically it says 120 days which, in most cases, IS 4 months

[Jeff S]

... in response to Why in the he!!..., posted by Bob S on Sep 5, 2003

He got a medical exemption, so he never traveled to the PI to meet his fiance. The first time he met her was when she arrived at the airport in Oklahoma with her K1 visa. Last I heard they'd been married three years and going strong.

I agree with you, though. It sounds crazy to be engaged to someone you've never met, but there are exceptions.

- Jeff

[Ray]

... in response to "Affidavit in Lieu of a Certificate..., posted by HaroldC on Sep 5, 2003

Harold,

The name of the person you intend to marry (fiancée) is specifically listed on the affidavit. If you changed your mind and wanted to marry someone else, then you would need to execute a new affidavit.

Consular officers may refuse to execute the affidavit if they think the proposed marriage is illegal or fraudulent. I don't know about in Manila, but the guy in Cebu takes this authority seriously.

Ray

[HaroldC]

... in response to Re: Affidavit , posted by Ray on Sep 5, 2003

nt

[shadow]

... in response to Re: Affidavit , posted by Ray on Sep 5, 2003

We just did the affidavit in cebu two weeks ago. They required my fiance to be present with ID at the interview, and spent more time asking her questions than they did me.She basically got "interrogated".

Larry.