Home PEx Relationships Love - Principles, Practices & Preferences
Discuss your bets and predictions on who will be the next Miss Universe. 👑

what do you people think of pre-nups?

pre-nuptial agreement.

does it cancel the purpose of sharing everything in a marriage or does it protect both partys individual interests?

speak up. :)
«1345

Comments

  • i was kinda' ok with this before but then i've read about some really ridiculous pre-nups... like there's this thing that the wife shouldn't exceed a certain weight while she is married to her husband, i.e., she shouldn't get fat! duh... isn't that just sooo pathetic? :bonkself:
  • Originally posted by piglet
    i was kinda' ok with this before but then i've read about some really ridiculous pre-nups... like there's this thing that the wife shouldn't exceed a certain weight while she is married to her husband, i.e., she shouldn't get fat! duh... isn't that just sooo pathetic? :bonkself:

    so you dont think that it cancels the point of sharing everything in a marriage?



    people speak up!
  • Yes. It also indicates that material gain is given more importance than the union itself.
  • Originally posted by pinkmoon
    Yes. It also indicates that material gain is given more importance than the union itself.

    so you think its absurd to have one, correct?
  • Originally posted by cong


    so you think its absurd to have one, correct?

    In the TRADITIONAL senes of marriage where the emphasis is placed on the relationship as a complete union, yes.

    But in these modern times where more and more people are getting married for purposes of security such as furthering a career, purposes of companionship, etc., then it is only practical. These aren't necessarily sham marriages, simply sort of mutual arrangements between two consenting parties.
  • Originally posted by pinkmoon


    In the TRADITIONAL senes of marriage where the emphasis is placed on the relationship as a complete union, yes.

    But in these modern times where more and more people are getting married for purposes of security such as furthering a career, purposes of companionship, etc., then it is only practical. These aren't necessarily sham marriages, simply sort of mutual arrangements between two consenting parties.

    okay.

    my girlfriend and i had a discussion about this last night. im for practically and all, but i dont know about this issue, parang, it cheapens the whole marriage process. i mean, i look at marriage as this institution where everything is shared, on the other hand, youre right, mutual arrangements should also be in place to protect individual interests.
  • Well, it's not a requirement naman eh, it's an option. So by opting not to draw one up, then you and your "betrothed" are exercising your right to engage in a traditional type marriage. And anyway, marriage is mostly a legal issue that at many times has no bearing on the couple's relationship. So many couples out there have carried on beautiful relationships without actually getting married.

    At saka I've seen these mutual type arrangements work out naman eh. One of my ninangs who is a successful doctor in the Seattle area got married in her early 40's to a guy who had attained equal success in his own field. Neither party wanted to have children, but were fond of each other and got together for the companionship and the security. So yes they signed a pre-nup kasi they already had their own assests going into the marriage. And they're very frank about their relationship, they're not hypocrites about it. At least they're getting along where many other couples in a traditional type marriage don't.
  • Originally posted by pinkmoon
    Well, it's not a requirement naman eh, it's an option. So by opting not to draw one up, then you and your "betrothed" are exercising your right to engage in a traditional type marriage. And anyway, marriage is mostly a legal issue that at many times has no bearing on the couple's relationship. So many couples out there have carried on beautiful relationships without actually getting married.

    At saka I've seen these mutual type arrangements work out naman eh. One of my ninangs who is a successful doctor in the Seattle area got married in her early 40's to a guy who had attained equal success in his own field. Neither party wanted to have children, but were fond of each other and got together for the companionship and the security. So yes they signed a pre-nup kasi they already had their own assests going into the marriage. And they're very frank about their relationship, they're not hypocrites about it. At least they're getting along where many other couples in a traditional type marriage don't.

    okay. thanks, as usual.
  • I see pre-nups as insurance for at least one of the two in case of divorce or separation...why get married then?
  • cong: im not sure about prenuptial agreement here in US but as far as i know the couple can share each of their assets so that if they've got divorced they will still be able to have it.

    But I know sure about "Absolute Property" before marriage is like they have to settle things bago ikasal.

    That's why we can't be able to say "Kaya sya pinakasalan dahil mayaman" We just don't know what's the truth behind those hearts. And bihira na pinakakasalan dahil sa money coz there's a law that could support your assets. Wonder why malaki nakukuha ng girls sa alimony .... tsk tsk wawa naman tayong mga lalaki?!?!
  • Personally, I think a pre-nuptial agreement is a bomb waiting to explode. I would probably be insulted if my significant other suddenly shoves one in my face after our engagement because it would imply that he doesn't trust the strength of our union, that it won't last forever. If he doubts it, I would wonder why he does and subsequently doubt it myself, which could lead to the (further?) weakening of our relationship, which could lead to our breaking up completely!

    I'd rather let the law prevail if we separate after marriage instead of letting my partner intercept it with a pre-nup.
  • A prenup won't hold water in the court anyway, especially in the States. Its just a waste of time, effort and money.

    BTW, here's a story told by an aunt and it happened in the 80s. This item made it into a social column in one of the leading newspapers in Manila.

    The day before the wedding, the groom--a scion of a rich Chinese family and sole heir, went to visit his bride--the daughter of a rich Chinese family and their unica hija. The purpose of the visit--the groom wanted the bride to sign a prenup stating that their (his family's) properties/riches/money stay within his family. The bride was hurt but was too proud to show it. She signed the prenup. The day of the wedding came--the basilica is filled with guests/friends/relatives. The bride was late. After about an hour of waiting--the groom received word that the bride went to the US and that the wedding is off. The groom and his family went to the reception that they paid for with their dignity dashed to the ground. Kahiya-hiya! Bee buti nga.
  • First off, a prenup <b>will</b> hold water in the Philippines so long as the proper legal measures are taken (which these are exactly, I don't know. You'll have to get a lawyer to tell you)

    On my end, I don't think that there's anything wrong with a pre-nup. In fact, I'm totally for it (and to tell you frankly, in the Philippines, I can't find any reasons for not wanting to have one other than greed or a misinformed decision making process).

    If the couple does break up, the pre-nup could save a lot of costly litigation, and at the very least, make sure that the least amount of each spouses' estate would be lost, and either side gets what was rightfully theirs before the marriage. Letting the law prevail will just make sure that BOTH of you have next to nothing in the end due to lawyers fees and stuff (and besides, the pre-nup IS the law prevailing!)

    More importantly, the pre-nup is more useful if the couple DOES <b> NOT </b> break up. By Philippine law, the estates of each spouse are joined as one during marriage unless there is some sort of agreement otherwise. When one spouse dies, half of the estate goes to the surviving spouse, and the other half is divided between the spouse and the children. BEFORE THAT HAPPENS THOUGH, THE ESTATE IS SUBJECT TO TAXES. When the other spuse dies, the estate is TAXED <b><i><u>AGAIN</u></i></b> before it goes to the children. Furthermore, the taxes will be considerably smaller if the estates are cut in half before the marriage (because, for example, the taxes for 2 1 million peso estates when added are smaller than the taxes for a 2 million peso estate - especially if its taxed twice!). The pre-nup will make sure that more of your hard earned money goes to your children (or whoever you decide on) instead of the government.
  • Yes, I understand the legal implications of pre-nuptials. My main concern is that although each pre-nup is different, they are avenues for stipulations and conditions in the interests of property, ownership, worth, and/or custody. Being presented with a pre-nup implies that "security" is more important than anything else and practical as that may be, I would still feel somewhat offended if that happens, personally. It totally flies against the face of the concept of marriage.

    Call me old-fashioned, romantic, whatever -- I still think that if someone is banking on the failure of the marriage or is marrying for the wrong reasons, then they shouldn't get married at all. You can't have your pre-nuptial cake and eat it, too. :bleh:
  • i think pre-nups are a great way to minimize material fears.....and i'd go for it myself when i get married...not because i have much property.....but because am also not marrying the guy for his property/ies :)

    and it gives me great pleasure that if ever i come into money....i'd decide to share it with my husband.....and not the law!!!
  • Originally posted by Clover_Gurrll
    A prenup won't hold water in the court anyway, especially in the States. Its just a waste of time, effort and money.

    i talked to four lawyers so far about this and two of them said the same thing, prenups can be disputed in court.

    interesting. well, thanks for responding.
  • Originally posted by DELISYUS
    i think pre-nups are a great way to minimize material fears.....and i'd go for it myself when i get married...not because i have much property.....but because am also not marrying the guy for his property/ies :)

    and it gives me great pleasure that if ever i come into money....i'd decide to share it with my husband.....and not the law!!!

    good point.
  • BadGiRLBadGiRL PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    Well, I'm all for it. Why not d ba?

    I mean, this way, the guy and his side knows I'm not after his money if he is much more monied than I am. And if he isn't exactly on the same financial standing as I am, the people around us will know and keep their mouths shut since they see na the guy didn't marry me for my money.

    And I think I can make my own money. Not naman siguro to the extent of owning half a town (but then again..malay mo db? :D ) but I can always live comfortably on my own.

    The most important thing is............ since there looms the possibility of termination and eklat, both parties will work harder to make the marriage work. Parang mas ok kung may divorce, kasi there always looms the possibility of divorce..kaya d mag papabaya ang both parties.

    One of the reasons marriages fail in the rp is because feeling nila since sila na forever and ever without escape... papabaya na sila...pumapangit na sila (d lang hitsura.)
  • Originally posted by cong


    i talked to four lawyers so far about this and two of them said the same thing, prenups can be disputed in court.

    interesting. well, thanks for responding.

    Yup. Anything CAN be disputed in court. The point of putting in the legal safeguards beforehand is to make sure that the disputes get thrown out the window if ever they materialize. If your lawyer knows what he or she is doing, its almost certain that whatever dispute can be averted. (some things are just beyond what can be put in pre-nups, such as for example in the Philippines, what the couple makes TOGETHER cannot be added in the pre-nup. If the lawyer knows how to do things, things like that won't be added)
  • Originally posted by Lush
    Being presented with a pre-nup implies that "security" is more important than anything else and practical as that may be, I would still feel somewhat offended if that happens, personally. It totally flies against the face of the concept of marriage.

    Call me old-fashioned, romantic, whatever -- I still think that if someone is banking on the failure of the marriage or is marrying for the wrong reasons, then they shouldn't get married at all. You can't have your pre-nuptial cake and eat it, too. :bleh:

    I don't agree with this. You CAN have your pre-nuptial cake and eat it too.. that's the whole point of it. A pre-nup can be made to make the marriage more secure. Just because you have a pre-nup doesn't mean that your banking on the failure of the marriage. I even think that your banking on its survival given the fact that the pre-nup gives you the chance to leave more for your children and/or spouse.

    Lastly, I really don't think that a pre-nup goes against the concept of marriage. A marriage is the union of 2 individuals - not 2 halves that make a whole, but 2 wholes that make an even larger whole. The individual doesn't cease to be an individual. Just because the other person doesn't pool their material properties with yours doesn't mean that he or she isn't sharing himself or herself. So, where does the pre-nup go against this concept? :bleh:
Sign In or Register to comment.