dailypedia
Speculation surrounding the rumored wedding of Bea Alonzo and businessman Vincent Co continues to circulate online following a viral cryptic Facebook post made by lawyer Wilfredo Garrido.
The discussion stemmed from ongoing rumors claiming that the couple’s supposed wedding in Spain this May may no longer push through due to alleged disagreements over a prenuptial agreement.
Neither Bea nor Vincent has confirmed the existence of a wedding cancellation or commented on the circulating claims.
However, netizens quickly connected Garrido’s recent post to the rumored couple after the lawyer discussed a “bride-to-be” who allegedly refused to sign a revised prenup agreement containing what he described as highly restrictive provisions.
“Dear Bride-to-be: You were ready to sign the prenup, but then they added provisions that had nothing to do with property relations. You had every right to refuse,” Garrido wrote.
“That no longer looks like a prenup but more like a life sentence,” he added.
While the lawyer did not directly mention any names, the timing of the post fueled online speculation linking it to Bea and Vincent.
In the lengthy post, Garrido detailed several alleged provisions supposedly added to the revised agreement, including a reported requirement for the bride to live with her future in-laws after marriage.
“For example, it’s not right that you are required to live with the in-laws. Ano sila, hilo?” he wrote.
He also questioned another alleged provision supposedly prohibiting either party from raising their voice during arguments.
“Neither is it fair to ban either party from raising their voice. What if you need to let off steam — that often happens in the movies and you are rather good at it — so why bar what is sometimes perfectly normal and necessary,” Garrido stated.
Among the most controversial claims in the post was an alleged clause involving child custody in the event of separation.
“But the most problematic, the deal breaker, the ‘poison pill,’ is the provision that in case of separation, you give up custody of your young children. You are giving away a primal, fundamental right, which is probably illegal to waive without court approval,” he wrote.
The lawyer also referenced television personality Maggie Wilson while discussing custody-related concerns.
“You need to talk to Maggie Wilson to know how it feels to lose one’s children to the stronger party,” Garrido added.
He ended his post by praising the unnamed bride-to-be for allegedly refusing to sign the revised agreement.
“It is best to walk away from a lifelong bondage. Your refusal to sign is admirable. They can shove their prenup. Forget the wedding. It doesn’t diminish you. Bravo,” he wrote.
The post immediately gained traction online, drawing mixed reactions from netizens. Some criticized the alleged provisions as excessive and controlling, while others argued that prenuptial agreements are common among wealthy and high-profile families as a means of protecting assets and family interests.
As of writing, both Bea and Vincent remain silent regarding the rumors and the viral speculation surrounding their reported wedding plans.
