Hello there,
My chilean fiancée and I (italian, US resident) are planning to get married in Chile next march, and despite Carolina being chilean there are a few aspects on the legal side of the marriage that are escaping our understanding. The fact that we are both in the US does not help, but even when Carolina was in Santiago recently she had a very hard time finding reliable information, even from the source, i.e. Registro Civil.
Getting to the point, we are very confused about:
1. the need for us to be physically present at some office to make the appointment with the "officer" who would officiate the wedding, and also
2. the apparent need for the same physical presence, plus that of the witnesses, for the "manifestacion" or something with a name like that that is another step before the wedding itself, that can not be done right up against the wedding itself (hence requiring a separate trip to Chile!).
As I said, Carolina has done some investigation while she was recently in Chile, but she did not have a whole lot of time and dealing with government offices is not a quick process.
This claimed need for physical presence sounds like non-sense.
I mean, it is likely that that's the strict word of the law, but then I would be really really really amazed if the law did not allow for one or both the spouses to elect somebody to act on their behalf for these bureaucratic steps. Maybe not both people, maybe not both events, but there must be some option.
In Italy for instance, famously one of the worst and byzantine bureaucracies in the world, there is something that sounds like this "manifestacion".
It is an important formal document which must be done at least 4-6 weeks before the wedding date. Despite being a crucial legal step, both spouse can be substituted by somebody who was given the legal authority to act on their behalf. It's called "delega" in italian, and it is actually a very simple document, that nowadays does not even need to be notarized.
I can't believe that the Chilean system would not permit this option, allowing for the difficulty for both parties to mee.
It is particularly distressing that it seems like there is need to meet more than once, one of which with witnesses!
Does anybody know if there are in fact ways to get around this very steep requirement, and who would be so kind as to give us some guidance about how to proceed?
Thanks a lot
Giovanni & Carolina


