Planning to Marry in the Philippines? You may wish to think again ... for your spouse's sake

The Philippines is not a signatory to the Hague Convention relating to the acceptance of government documents by other countries. This means that documents such as a Certificate of Marriage issued in the Philippines will not be accepted in the UK as proof of marriage, even if issued by the NSO. Up until fairly recently, this wasn't a major problem as one could register the marriage at the British Embassy in Manila and it would be included in the General Register - held in Liverpool - as a marriage abroad. That evidence was accepted by all and sundry but most importantly by pensions providers and the DWP.

Our great and wise former Tory Leader and former Foreign Secretary must have agreed that FO employees are worked far too hard and so decided to put an end to this service. As well as helping to prevent RSI injuries to the more junior members of embassy staff, who used to process such requests and issue British-style Marriage Certificates, this cunning plan potentially saves the tax-payer a little money. For if the marriage is not recorded at the General Registry in the UK, the widow will not be entitled to receive any death benefits or widows' pension upon her husband's demise, regardless of where her husband dies. It is only a Marriage Certificate that is acceptable proof of marriage and the existence of a spousal visa is completely irrelevant.

The UK government is required to accept government-issued documents by co-signatories of the Hague Convention I mentioned. So if you do wish to marry (more) locally, you might want to consider Hong Kong or Singapore as alternative venues in the region. Neither require visas for UK or Philippine Passport holders for short-term visits.

You can still register births and deaths with the Embassy but the guidance notes for registering births states that a British Passport should be applied for beforehand. The idiotic numpty who penned this advice is obviously blissfully unaware that an NSO Birth Certificate will not be accepted by the UK Identity and Passport Service which is precisely why one would want to register a local birth! (And that's overlooking the fact that new Passport Applications are NOT being accepted by the Embassy due to the current 6-9 month delay in issuing by the Home Office. Emergency travel documents are being offered instead.)

If this was true, then you would never be able to get a spouse visa??????

This sounds strange

For any marriages overseas...

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...istry-service-discontinued-for-overseas-brits

There is no legal requirement to deposit your foreign marriage or civil partnership certificate with the GRO, or to have your marriage/civil partnership recorded in the UK.

The deposit of a foreign certificate does not make the marriage legal in the UK, nor does it ‘recognise’ the marriage as a valid one.
The validity in UK law of a marriage or civil partnership contracted in a foreign country is in no way affected by its having been, or not having been, recorded in the UK.

The marriage IS legal by being inaccordance with Philippine law and NSO acts as GRO does in the UK.
The original pre-NSO marriage certificate is the definitive marriage cert, if wishing to be picky.

Additional info from Gov Q&A

Q. Why is the FCO making this change?

A. This change is being introduced as part of our 2013-16 Consular Strategy: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fco-consular-strategy-2010-13 As the strategy makes clear, Consular Excellence is about high-quality, modern, cost effective and efficient support to British Nationals overseas. This change will help make better use of our scarce resources and modernise the way we deliver these services. This will allow us to concentrate on front-line consular work, providing more support to our vulnerable customers including, for example, minors, the elderly, people with mental health problems, and victims of serious crime abroad.

Q. Is there a legal requirement to deposit a foreign marriage or civil partnership with the GRO?

A. No. There is no legal requirement to deposit your foreign marriage or civil partnership certificate with the GRO, or to have your marriage/civil partnership recorded in the UK. The deposit of a foreign certificate does not ‘recognise’ the marriage as a valid one. The validity in UK law of a marriage or civil partnership contracted in a foreign country is in no way affected by its having been, or not having been, recorded in the UK.

Q. What was the purpose of the deposit service?

A. It was simply a service to safeguard a foreign marriage certificate and to allow customers to obtain a certified copy of it in the future. Deposit did not “recognise” or “validate” the foreign marriage under UK law.

So I believe but I wasn't simply referring to State Pensions but private ones also. I know several people in the UK whose pensions continue to be paid to widow(er)s, one of whom is a former civil servant.

That reads as though it were composed by Alistair Campbell! "Consular Excellence"? Ha! The Cebu Consul used to provide certain consular services so that Britons living in the Visayas didn't have to go to Manila. Unfortunately she retired a year ago and her post was "inherited" by her daughter who does none of the things her mother formerly undertook. Consular services are limited to being provided by Manila and come at some considerable upfront cost. An employee of the embassy will visit you in hospital or in prison, provided you pay in advance.

However that Q&A document correctly states that there is no legal requirement to deposit a foreign certificate with the GRO but fails to explain the disadvantages that the curtailment of services brings to British citizens.

But when you could register oversea marriage with GRO , it didn't make the marriage UK legal???

"It was simply a service to safeguard a foreign marriage certificate and to allow customers to obtain a certified copy of it in the future. Deposit did not “recognise” or “validate” the foreign marriage under UK law"


http://www.flyawayweddings.com/legal/uk/

Additionally

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/268020/marriage.pdf

Was the original statement based on known facts of a marriage certificate being rejected?
If so, then such a decision should be challenged

You are missing the point. Embassies used to issue a Certificate of Marriage Abroad and the event itself was recorded at the Liverpool office of the General Registry. That certificate was recognised as a proof of status whereas a Philippine - or other Hague Convention non-signatory - issued one isn't.

According to Gov site, there is no problem with having an NSO birth cert, for use as UK registration or passport application?

https://www.gov.uk/register-a-birth

An NSO cert or any other country would have to be recognized, otherwise a spouse would never be able to obtain UK passport when granted citizenship???


There is no evidence of either NSO or any other countries official certificates not being accepted by UK organizations.

The GRO is solely for ease of obtaining copies (no longer oversea marriage certs), its a misconception that GRO makes submissions officially accepted by UK.

I think not being able to lodge overseas documents with the General Register Office is just a cost saving exercise for the GRO and will not, in any way, alter the validity of an overseas marriage in the eyes of the UK government.

If your marriage was in a country where obtaining documents at a later date may be a problem you may want to obtain multiple copies and ensure their safe keeping within the UK. Getting documents from the NSO does not appear to be a problem but it does cost $20 (in addition to the cost of the certificate) to get them sent to the UK. And that is via the normal post (taking 6-8 weeks). You can pay more to get them sent by courier, but the e-census website cannot process such an application and you have to email after the application if you want documents sent by courier.

I think concerns are being raised that do not exist in reality and I seem to recall this is the second time that the same concerns have been raised by Markham on this same issue.