Pre-nup or no pre-nup

[xninjax]

Just curious sa sentiment ng tsikot.

If you are wealthy and your soon to be spouse is not, would you consider a pre-nup agreement?

[_Cathy_]

The less wealthy fiance should be the one to offer the prenup.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

[Walter]

Your legal team will insist on a prenup ... it's standard among high net worth individuals ... especially for old money ...

[boybi]

Why not? Yung ayaw sa prenup, alam na pera lang talaga habol. Besides, if the couple truly loves each other, gagastusan pa din naman nila isat-isa.

[uls]

"prenup? but it's sooo unromantic"

haha

[uls]

masyado sensitive

"prenup? but it's sooo unromantic"

haha

[Jun aka Pekto]

If I was filthy rich? Of course, I'll have a prenup. She can take it or leave it. She choose to leave? Bu-bye.

Also, I will never marry any woman who has boatloads of debt. Couples should disclose their debts to each other before tying the knot.

Especially here in the US. You never know if your SO has student debts in the 6 figures $$$. YOU'LL be the one paying for it.

Forget that. No woman is beautiful enough for me to start paying off her debt.

[xninjax]

The less wealthy fiance should be the one to offer the prenup.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

could you elaborate why?I thought it should be the other way around

[n_spinner06]

could you elaborate why?I thought it should be the other way around

Awkward if the wealthier party brings it up. You risk offending the other party because it could be misconstrued as implying the other party is after your money. Better if the less wealthy party offers. Proof pa that the marriage is done in good faith.

[_Cathy_]

could you elaborate why?I thought it should be the other way around

Awkward if the wealthier party brings it up. You risk offending the other party because it could be misconstrued as implying the other party is after your money. Better if the less wealthy party offers. Proof pa that the marriage is done in good faith.

This. Yung lesser asset fiance saving the wealthier fiance from having to bring it up plus it shows that the lesser asset fiance is not after money.

This really affects the upper 1% siguro of the population sa pinas. The rest, kahit middle class, do not have much to split anyway. Easier pa nga separation sa mga mahihirap. They just go separate ways.[emoji16]

Concern lang to ng mga 1) self-made as previously mentioned who risk losing a significant portion of their wealth or 2) old money parents na magpapamana ng pera nila sa anak (and indirectly sa future in-law).

In my family's case, we are middle class but my paternal Lola wants our properties to be kept within the bloodline.

Di ba pwedeng legal separation na lang? Iirc, separate assets na pag legally separated. Di na kailangan annulment. Unless she wants to remarry, then same risk sakaling maghiwalay din sila nung current partner... Unless of course, prenup.

My Tita is legally separated but when my Tito passed away, she still got ALL the wife benefits. So I asked nga what's the legal separation, parang it's literally to legally live separately They can't remarry naman.

[dr. d]

My Tita is legally separated but when my Tito passed away, she still got ALL the wife benefits. So I asked nga what's the legal separation, parang it's literally to legally live separately They can't remarry naman.

it all depends on the court-approved and mutually-agreed-upon terms of the legal separation.
if the two parties can not agree on the property partition, then the court will make it for them.
however, if the spouse dies while the legal separation proceedings are still in motion and not yet judged with finality, "they are still considered married, and surviving spouse gets its proper share, as any non-separated spouse will get."
so, in this example, is it the first statement, or is it the third statement?

i know of a few once-couples,
saying legally separated na,
when in fact, linalakad pa lang ang kaso sa korte.

[Little Missy]

Ako yes. Yung everything you have before marriage is still yours when you separate but everything you built together while married will be divided equally. That said, I want to be fully provided for not going 50/50 lol. Not all rich men are generous men. On the other hand, there are guys naman who earns less but has a provider mindset.

Sent from my LYA-L29 using Tsikot Forums mobile app

[dr. d]

Just curious sa sentiment ng tsikot.

If you are wealthy and your soon to be spouse is not, would you consider a pre-nup agreement?

i pray that i never get the opportunity to have to choose.

the spouse-to-be might be ok,
but what about the spouse's relatives (i.e., the parents) ? a significant percentage of the spouse-to-be's property, might be coming from the parents' heir-itage... many things can happen to the not-yet-inherited properties...
yes, there are laws, but why invoke the law, if the problem can be avoided in the first place?

[Ry_Tower]

Just curious sa sentiment ng tsikot.

If you are wealthy and your soon to be spouse is not, would you consider a pre-nup agreement?

Nope. Depends upon the person and his values. If you are confident about the partner you choose, why bother?

Tsaka may legitime naman sa Pinas.

[Little Missy]

Nope. Depends upon the person and his values. If you are confident about the partner you choose, why bother?

Tsaka may legitime naman sa Pinas.

Pano yung legitime sa Pinas?

Sent from my LYA-L29 using Tsikot Forums mobile app

[Ry_Tower]

Pano yung legitime sa Pinas?

Sent from my LYA-L29 using Tsikot Forums mobile app

In layman’s term, legitime is that part of a person’s property or rights (estate) which he cannot sell, donate, or transfer in any manner. The ownership over that certain part of a person’s estate cannot be transferred to a stranger. Bear in mind that when we say stranger, we mean those who are not part of the family.

The Civil Code of the Philippines provide that:

Art. 886. Legitime is that part of the testator's property which he cannot dispose of because the law has reserved it for certain heirs who are, therefore, called compulsory heirs.

Art. 887. The following are compulsory heirs:
(1) Legitimate children and descendants, with respect to their legitimate parents and ascendants;
(2) In default of the foregoing, legitimate parents and ascendants, with respect to their legitimate children and descendants;
(3) The widow or widower;
(4) Acknowledged natural children, and natural children by legal fiction;
(5) Other illegitimate children referred to in Article 287.

So kahit walang prenup, the children of the couple or the ascendants still have something to loof forward too. All is not totally lost ika nga hehe.

[Little Missy]

Nope. Depends upon the person and his values. If you are confident about the partner you choose, why bother?

Tsaka may legitime naman sa Pinas.

The thing is wala talagang guarantee kahit sa kasal. We are imperfect people na may sariling pag iisip and people change. Most naman yan started out well pero reality is meron pa din talagang nagfifail na marriage.

Daming takot sa kasal dahil sa repercussions in case it fails. So they would rather explore cohabilitation. But there are studies linking premarital cohabilitation to divorce. Also, hindi ma maximize yung full lawful benefit ng kasal, hence kahit same *** couple fight for their right to be wed. Also imo lugi ang babae sa live in set up.

So ang sa akin, if isa sa fear eh yung financial consequences, edi get a pre-nup.

Sent from my LYA-L29 using Tsikot Forums mobile app

[boybi]

Ano ba kinakatakot o ayaw ng mga tao sa prenup?

[uls]

Ano ba kinakatakot o ayaw ng mga tao sa prenup?

baka masira ang relationship

kunwari magsyota starting to talk about marriage

tapos na-bring up ng isa ung pre-nup

mag react ung isa "ganyan ba tingin mo sakin?!"

away na

hehe

[Ry_Tower]

The thing is wala talagang guarantee kahit sa kasal. We are imperfect people na may sariling pag iisip and people change. Most naman yan started out well pero reality is meron pa din talagang nagfifail na marriage.

Daming takot sa kasal dahil sa repercussions in case it fails. So they would rather explore cohabilitation. But there are studies linking premarital cohabilitation to divorce. Also, hindi ma maximize yung full lawful benefit ng kasal, hence kahit same *** couple fight for their right to be wed. Also imo lugi ang babae sa live in set up.

So ang sa akin, if isa sa fear eh yung financial consequences, edi get a pre-nup.

Sent from my LYA-L29 using Tsikot Forums mobile app

Meron naman annulment and legal separation for that. Soon Divorce law.

Punto ko lang is majority naman ng mag-asawa nagtatagal diba? Kaya for me I won't consider it. But I have no issues with those that wants pre-nup. Thier lives, their decision. Pero sa totoong nagmamahalan hindi dapat kasi pinag-uusapan sino mas mayaman.

For me mga mahinag foundation na relationship yung nagkaka-issue nang ganyan. Ibig sabihin either or both parties may baggage na dadalhin sa marraiage na hindi pa nareresolve. Kaya for me, ayusin muna yun prenup or without kasi yun naman magiging ugat niyan. Parang si Richard at Sarah Lahbati lang, hindi naman nakaalis sa bad influence ng nanay niya si Richard, yun problema nilang mag-asawa. Kung inayos yun bago kinasal, hindi mangyayari yang hiwalayan nila.

Dirty rotten, baggages.