Payad vs. Tolentino G.R. No. 42258. January 15, 1936

FACTS – Victorio Payad filed a petition for the probate of the will of the decedent Leoncia Tolentino. This was opposed by Aquilina Tolentino, averring that said Will was made only after the death of the testatrix. The lower court denied the probate of the will on the ground that the attestation clause was not in conformity with the requirements of the law since it was not stated therein that the testatrix caused Atty. Almario to write her name at her express direction. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE – Was it necessary that the attestation clause state that the testatrix caused Atty. Almario to write her name at her express direction?

HELD - The evidence of record establishes the fact the Leoncia Tolentino, assisted by Attorney Almario, placed her thumb mark on each and every page of the questioned will and that said attorney merely wrote her name to indicate the place where she placed said thumb mark. In other words Attorney Almario did not sign for the testatrix. She signed by placing her thumb mark on each and every page thereof. "A statute requiring a will to be 'signed' is satisfied if the signature is made by the testator's mark." (Quoted by this court from 28 R. C. L., p. 117; De Gala vs. Gonzales and Ona, 53 Phil., 104, 108.) It is clear, therefore, that it was not necessary that the attestation clause in question should state that the testatrix requested Attorney Almario to sign her name inasmuch as the testatrix signed the will in question in accordance with law.

Taboada vs. Rosal GR L-36033. November 5, 1982

FACTS – Petitioner Apolonio Taboada filed a petition for probate of the will of the late Dorotea perez. The will consisted of two pages, the first page containing all the testamentary dispositions of the testator and was signed at the end or bottom of the page by the testatrix alone and at the left hand margin by the three instrumental witnesses. The second page consisted of the attestation clause and the acknowledgment was signed at the end of the attestation clause by the three witnesses and at the left hand margin by the testatrix. The trial court disallowed the will for want of formality in its execution because the will was signed at the bottom of the page solely by the testatrix, while the three witnesses only signed at the left hand margin of the page. The judge opined that compliance with the formalities of the law required that the witnesses also sign at the end of the will because the witnesses attest not only the will itself but the signature of the testatrix. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE – Was the object of attestation and subscription fully when the instrumental witnesses signed at the left margin of the sole page which contains all the testamentary dispositions?

HELD –

(SHORT RULING)

On certiorari, the Supreme Court held a) that the objects of attestation and subscription were fully met and satisfied in the present case when the instrumental witnesses signed at the left margin of the sole page which contains all the testamentary dispositions, especially so when the will was properly identified by a subscribing witness to be the same will executed by the testatrix; and b) that the failure of the attestation clause to state the number of pages used in writing the will would have been a fatal defect were it not for the fact that it is really and actually composed of only two pages duly signed by the testatrix and her instrumental witnesses.

 (LONG RULING [VERBATIM])

Undoubtedly, under Article 805 of the Civil Code, the will must be subscribed or signed at its end by the testator himself or by the testator's name written by another person in his presence, and by his express direction, and attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another.

It must be noted that the law uses the terms attested and subscribed. Attestation consists in witnessing the testator's execution of the will in order to see and take note mentally that those things are done which the statute requires for the execution of a will and that the signature of the testator exists as a fact. On the other hand, subscription is the signing of the witnesses' names upon the same paper for the purpose of identification of such paper as the will which was executed by the testator. (Ragsdale v. Hill, 269 SW 2d 911).

The signatures of the instrumental witnesses on the left margin of the first page of the will attested not only to the genuineness of the signature of the testatrix but also the due execution of the will as embodied in the attestation clause.

While perfection in the drafting of a will may be desirable, unsubstantial departure from the usual forms should be ignored, especially where the authenticity of the will is not assailed. (Gonzales v. Gonzales, 90 Phil. 444, 449).

The law is to be liberally construed, "the underlying and fundamental objective permeating the provisions on the law on wills in this project consists in the liberalization of the manner of their execution with the end in view of giving the testator more freedom in expressing his last wishes but with sufficient safeguards and restrictions to prevent the commission of fraud and the exercise of undue and improper pressure and influence upon the testator. This objective is in accord with the modern tendency in respect to the formalities in the execution of a will" (Report of the Code Commission, p. 103).

The objects of attestation and of subscription were fully met and satisfied in the present case when the instrumental witnesses signed at the left margin of the sole page which contains all the testamentary dispositions, especially so when the will was properly identified by subscribing witness Vicente Timkang to be the same will executed by the testatrix. There was no question of fraud or substitution behind the questioned order. 

Balonan vs. Abellana GR No. L-15153, August 31, 1960

Facts: A 2-page Will and Testament by the testatrix Anacleta Abellana was sought to be probated at rhe CFI of Zamboanga City. ON the second page, which is the last page of the Will, on the left margin appears the signature of Juan Bello under whose name appears handwritten the following phrase 'Por la Testadora Anacleta Abellana' (for the tetattrix Anacleta Abellana). (The CFI admitted the probate of the will. Hence, this appeal, the petitioner contending that the signature of Juan A. Abello on top of the phrase ‘por la tetadora Anacleta Abellana did not comply with the requirements of the law prescribing the manner in which it ill be executed.)

ISSUE: Does the signature of Dr. Juan A. Abello above the typewritten statement "Por la Testadora Anacleta Abellana . . ., Ciudad de Zamboanga," comply with the requirements of the law prescribing the manner in which a will shall be executed?

HELD: The present law, Article 805 of the Civil Code, in part provides as follows:

"Every will, other than a holographic will, must be subscribed at the end thereof by the testator himself or by the testator's name written by some other person in his presence, and by his express direction, and attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another." (Italics supplied.)

In the case of Barut vs. Cabacungan, 21 Phil., 461, we held that the important thing is that it clearly appears that the name of the testatrix was signed at her express direction; it is unimportant whether the person who writes the name of the testatrix signs his own or not. Cases of the same import are as follows: (Ex Parte Juan Ondevilla, 13 Phil., 479, Caluya vs. Domingo, 27 Phil., 330; Garcia vs. Lacuesta, 90 Phil., 489).

In the case at bar the name of the testatrix, Anacleta Abellana, does not appear written under the will by said Abellana herself, or by Dr. Juan Abello. There is, therefore, a failure to comply with the express requirement in the law that the testator must himself sign the will, or that his name be affixed thereto by Some other person in his presence and by his express direction.

It appearing that the above provision of the law has not been complied with, we are constrained to declare that the said will of the deceased Anacleta Abellana may not be admitted to probate.

On HB 1799: Divorce Bill

On its Explanatory Note, HB 1799 (Divorce Bill) states in its opening paragraph that "Underpinning this proposal is a commitment to the policy of the State to protect and strengthen marriage and the family as basic social institutions, to value the dignity of every human person, to guarantee full respect for human rights, and to ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men. The provisions of this bill are consistent with and in pursuit of those State policies."


The Note further tells us that although in Filipino culture, marriage has been regarded as not only a basic social institution but also as a sacred union between spouses, marriage being the "fount of love protection and care," the painful reality is that "there are many failed, unhappy marriages across all Filipino classes." It further states that the present laws relating to legal separation and nullity of marriages are inadequate to "respond to the myriad causes of failed marriages." 


The Bill, then, seeks to provide another remedy for failed and irreparable marriages = Divorce. The Bill will actually be an amendment to certain Articles in the Family Code relating to Legal Separation by not only incorporating the term divorce within its present ambit but also providing for additional grounds for effecting Divorce. Section II of the proposed Divorce Bill provides:



SECTION 2. Articles 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62) 63, 64, 65 and 66 of Executive Order No. 209, as amended, otherwise known as The Family Code of the Philippines, are also hereby amended to read as follows:


"Art. 55 (A). A petition for legal separation may be filed on any of
the following grounds:


(1) Repeated physical violence or grossly abusive conduct directed against the petitioner, a common child, or a child of the petitioner;
(2) Physical violence or moral pressure to compel the petitioner to change religious or political affiliation;
(3) Attempt of respondent to corrupt or induce the petitioner, a common child, or a child of the petitioner, to engage in prostitution, or connivance in such corruption or inducement;
(4) Final judgment sentencing the respondent to imprisonment of more than six years, even if pardoned;
(5) Drug addiction or habitual alcoholism of the respondent;
(6) Lesbianism or homosexuality-of the respondent;
(7) Contracting by the respondent of a subsequent bigamous marriage, whether in the Philippines or abroad;,
(8) Sexual infidelity or perversion;
(9) Attempt by the respondent against life of the petitioner; or
(10) Abandonment of petitioner by respondent without justifiable cause for more than one year.


For purposes of this Article, the term "child" shall include a child by nature or by adoption.


(B) A PETITION FOR DIVORCE MAY BE FILED ON ANY OF THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:


(1) THE PETITIONER HAS BEEN SEPARATED DE FACTO FROM HIS OR HER SPOUSE FOR AT LEAST FIVE YEARS AT THE TIME OF THE FILING OF THE PETITION AND RECONCILIATION IS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE;


(2) THE PETITIONER HAS BEEN LEGALLY SEPARATED FROM HIS OR HER SPOUSE FOR AT LEAST TWO YEARS AT THE TIME OF THE FILING OF THE PETITION AND RECONCILIATION IS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE;


(3) WHEN ANY OF THE GROUNDS FOR LEGAL SEPARATION UNDER PARAGRAPH (A) OF THIS ARTICLE HAS CAUSED THE IRREPARABLE BREAKDOWN OF THE MARRIAGE; 


(4) WHEN ONE OR BOTH SPOUSES ARE PSYCHOLOGICALLY INCAPACITATED TO COMPLY WITH THE ESSENTIAL MARITAL OBLIGATIONS;


(5) WHEN THE SPOUSES SUFFER FROM IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES THAT HAVE CAUSED THE IRREPARABLE BREAKDOWN OF THE MARRIAGE."


Note that paragraph B of the aforementioned provision is a totally new provision and is the additional provision setting the grounds for Divorce. What can be gleaned from this provision is that irreconcilable differences and irreparable breakdown of marriages are the overriding factors for allowing Divorce, severing the marriage ties, and allowing the spouses to remarry again. But the Bill itself fails to to tell is why or how divorce can be the remedy for failed marriages . What it does is only provide additional murky grounds for severing marriage ties (irreconcilable differences, irreparable breakdown of marriages), with the ultimate goal of restoring the spouses to their single status. It does say, in its Explanatory Note, that the present laws on Legal Separation and Nullity of Marriages are inadequate, and provides for the distinction between Nullity and Divorce, but still fails to enlighten us as to why they are inadequate, or that Divorce is the solution that shall fill  the void created by our present laws. 


In an effort to strengthen its argument, the Explanatory Note further cites that separation "is usually the last resort of many Filipino couples whose marriage has failed. Cases of battered women also support this. Battered women invariably seek separation only after many years of trying to make the
marriage work; separation only becomes imperative for them when they realize that it is necessary for their and their children's survival. Divorce could actually provide protection to battered women and their children from further violence and abuse." This argument actually opens several pertinent issues that the Divorce Bill still cannot address. For one, if separation has been considered as merely a last resort after many years of trying to make the marriage work, what makes the proponents of this Bill so certain that Divorce will also not be considered as a last resort after many years of trying to make the marriage work? As we usually quote here in Legazpi, "it's the same banana-batag." It's the same thing (at least for this issue.) It doesn't actually provide a new remedy (for the remedy is already provided by law). It only allows couples to remarry again. Of course, proponents of this Bill are arguing that "divorce as a remedy need not be for the purpose of re-marriage; it may be resorted to by individuals to achieve peace of mind and facilitate their pursuit of full human development." But again, Divorce fails to tell us how this can help individuals achieve peace of mind and facilitate their pursuit of full human development, or that the present laws on Separation and Nullity of Marriages falls short of allowing individuals to achieve peace of mind. 


Another, separation as a last resort actually, in a way, adheres to our constitutional principle that marriage is a solemn covenant between spouses> It does not mean that one has to endure to the point where one's human dignity has been so degraded and one's opportunity and right to full human development has been so stunted before one can finally resort to this. It only tells us that, having entered into this solemn vow, we have to do the best that we can to make this marriage work. Proponents of the Divorce Bill, by arguing that separation has only been considered by many as a last resort after many years of trying to make the marriage work are subtly telling us that making marriage work is actually a useless burden. Why go through all that trouble and burden of trying to make this marriage work when we can quit while we are ahead? I don't know about you, but to me it sounds like this: "to hell with the sanctity of marriage!" What happened now to this Bills underpinning that it is committed to the policy of the State to protect and strengthen marriage?


But, for the sake of argument, let us assume that Divorce will not be a last resort. It actually becomes an easier resort, not to give spouses peace of mind and the chance for full human development, but merely to be declared single again and re-marry. This is not to say that they will not have peace of mind and the opportunity for full human growth if they get divorced.  This is just to say that peace of mind and full human development are not effects of divorce, nor of legal separation, nor of nullity of marriage. These things are actually achieved based on one's human values, principles and disposition in life. The way I see it, the only difference between legal separation and divorce, on the one hand is that in the former, you cannot marry while in the latter you can; and nullity of marriage and divorce, on the other hand is that with the former, the grounds for nullity are stricter, while with divorce, the grounds are more lenient and easier by including "irreconcilable difference, irreparable breakdown of the marriage, and the grounds for legal separation under Art. 55 of the Family Code" as further grounds for divorce.  


The bottom line is, the only thing divorce has to offer is the chance for the spouses to re-marry again. But this time, the grounds are easier for divorce. Proponents would argue that the process of getting a divorce would still be arduous (perhaps in a last ditch effort to justify its claim that divorce will not destroy marriage). And yet, the supposed remedy it offers is already in place through our laws. If the marriage has broken down to a point of irreconcilability, we have legal separation. If the marriage has not worked basically because of the failure of one or both spouses to comply with his/her basic marital obligations, we have psychological incapacity as a ground under Art. 36 of the Family Code. We also have Article 45 of the Family Code for other grounds for the Nullity of Marriage. 


If Proponents argue that the reality of marriage in our Filipino setting is that there have been battered wives, abused and hurt, we also have recourse in law for these things. We have the VAWC in order to curtail and protect abuses done to women (and spouses). We also have the Revised Penal Code to address these abuses and violence. We have so many laws that actually already address the very things the Divorce Bill wants to address. It is futile to argue that divorce would give a new remedy. The remedies are in place. What the proponents of this bill do not realize is that they are just opening a can of worms, a pandora's Box, if you wish.


One last thing, if spouses are allowed to re-marry again under this Bill, this Bill actually does not resolve the very problems of marriage that pervade our culture. Although I have tried not to argue by example as this would only be met by "counter-examples" that would negate my examples, allow me to cite situations that would show us that the Divorce Bill would actually just perpetuate abuses and add to the number of failed marriages and irreconcilable differences. Say, for example, that a woman sought divorce because, for years, she has been  a battered wife, abused physically, emotionally, psychologically, sexually by her husband. Or, say, for example, that the husband has been always involved in sexual infidelity or perversion. She now seeks for divorce and it is subsequently granted. Both spouses are declared single. The legal effect? They can re-marry again. What happens now to the subsequent marriage entered into by the former abuser-husband? Would it not be that he would, again commit the very same things he did during his first marriage? The cycle will not stop, essentially because divorce fails miserably to address this issue. If the abuser-spouse can re-marry again, we are actually just allocating the previous marital problems to another avenue - the new marriage. And if this happens, it will be a slippery slope from there. Failed marriages after failed marriages shall snowball. The abuse will not stop. The irreconcilable differences and irreparable damages to the marriage will not go away. They will still be there, albeit in another new marriage. 


Proponents of this Bill argue that "(t)he bill seeks to introduce divorce in Philippine law with a strong sense of confidence that it will be used responsibly by Filipino couples. It fails to recognize the fact that the marriage would not have reached a point of "irreparability" if, in the first place, one or both spouses have been responsible. 


What happens now to the sanctity of marriage? What happens now to the "peace of mind and opportunity for human development" the proponents so conveniently assert but miserably fail to establish? What happens now to this Bill's declaration that its underpinning is committed to the State's policy to protect and strengthen the marriage and the family as basic social institutions, to value the dignity of every human person, to guarantee full respect for human rights, and to ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men? If you would ask me, they only become punch lines rather than principles. Under this Bill, they don't become backbones of generations spent protecting the very sanctity of marriage. In the end, the Divorce Bill will fail on its purpose. In the end, the Divorce Bill will fail us all. 

Come Back To Me

You say you gotta go and find yourself
You say that you're becoming someone else
Don't recognize the face in the mirror looking back at you

You say you're leaving as you look away
I know there's really nothing left to say
Just know I'm here whenever you need me I'll wait for you

So I'll let you go, I'll set you free
And when you've seen what you need to see
When you find you, come back to me

Take your time, I won't go anywhere
Picture you with the wind in your hair
I'll keep your things right where you left them
I'll be here for you

Oh and I'll let you go, I'll set your free
And when you've seen what you need to see
When you find you, come back to me

And I hope you find everything that you need
I'll be right here waiting to see
You find you, come back to me

I can't get close if you're not there
I can't get inside if there's no soul there
I can't face you, I can't save you
It's something you'll have to do

So I'll let you go, I'll set you free
And when you've seen what you need to see
When you find you, come back to me
Come back to me

And I hope you find everything that you need
I'll be right here waiting to see
You find you, come back to me

You find you, come back to me
When you find you, come back to me
When you find you, come back to me


- David Cook

People have different ways of coping with stress. Some would cry their hearts out until they can cry no more. Others would eat their fat ass out until their jeans could accommodate those extra ass-pounds no more. Others would seek the refuge of their friends and loved ones. And still others would seek the sanctuary of their own rooms, seeking silence and bearing the pain all alone, waiting for time to once again give its magical cure of healing all wounds.

Right now, I am under tremendous stress. I tried to cry. But what can i do? Even tears cannot wash away the pain I feel. I tried to eat, everything has tasted so bland I could only stuff myself with one bite. And yes, i have lost weight... terribly. No, i didnt go to my loved ones. I did go to my friends. But their glorious advice for me to still hope and commit. These are noble advices. But if you see me walk, you won't see the walk of a man who has just found freedom. You'll see the walk of a man who has lost everything. If I could only launch a thousand ships to bring her back to our island.

 I sought the silence of my room, but everywhere I looked, I saw her. And as time goes by, the memory of her and the acceptance of the fact that I have loved her far too much, just makes me worse than before.

I remember a line from a movie, where a broken hearted man said that like any other man whose heart was broken, "I went to war." I would want to go to war. Join the military perhaps. Drown the pain in exchange for another pain. If i ciould only do that. In fact, if I could only go to any war, I would. But not a war with her. The consequences are always too dire. But I was always too dumb to realize this. UNtil I lost.

I lost her.

So here I am, having my own version of relieving myself of this gargantuan stress that has pinned me to the ground, crushing me. And what am I doing? I have with me a mug. This is not some ordinary mug. This is the mug that has been my constant companion during times like this. And beside it is its partner, the pitcher, filled with the coldest Red Horse beer, the strongest beer out in a sari-sari store. And I am hoping that after I drink the last drop, I'd have felt its kick. I hope it knocks me out. I haven't been sleeping well lately.

(Oh the god of sleep and the god of love must have colluded to punish me, for where I can be with her in my dreams, slumber has never sneaked itself to my eyes.)

I am a mess. The messiest I have ever been. And although I promised to myself I'd fix me, the real issue is not really about fixing me. The real issue is, how long will it take before I can fix me. Your guess is as good as mine. For, apparently, I, who should be in the best position to know who I am, don't know myself anymore. I do not know what I have become, or how I became like this. I wanted to follow the bread crumbs backwards, so I could at least determine the wrong turns I made. But I have done that a thousand times. I have already marked the wrong turns that I made. But the farther I go backwards, the more I discover that both of us made wrong turns. I wanted to fix those. Perhaps, make a map. But if a map has to be made, both of us should work together. The future will still be an undiscovered terrain. But if we work things out, everything will be just fine.

But she doesn't want that. She wants her own map. She wants to carve a path where I don't fit, where I will get lost. Where I lose myself entirely; whereas, I tried to carve a path for both of us, where we could go side by side. It wouldn't be perfect. There will be times when we will argue where to turn and what to do. But for me, as long as I held her hand, as long as she held mine, I'd eventually make the right turns. And she wouldn't be disappointed anymore.

She said if she only knew me, she wouldn't have entered into a relationship with me. She was right. I would have said the same thing to her. But i don't. i never will. Because I believe a relationship is not like a job, that if you don't like the work load, you quit. A relationship is more than that. It requires a different commitment. This commitment does not only demand that you accept the reality that the future is unknown. It demands that you brace yourself for what is to come, for relationships are not like kindergarten romance, fairy tales, and happily-ever-afters. it demands not only the courage to accept what you already know about your partner, but also the courage to acknowledge his strengths, and to help him with his weaknesses. It should always go both ways. And it should always be accompanied with understanding, not dejection. For with dejection, you'll only be pushing yourself away, consciously or unconsciously. And you will feel worse.

But how you see things will determine how you will approach a trial. As they say, you can always see a pail as half empty, or as half full. If you see it as half empty, you will never have joy, even the simplest of ones (and mind you, the simplest of joys are actually the spices that make life more meaningful) for you'll never appreciate the effort that has been put  in order to reach that far. You will only see failure. But if you see it as half full, you will always have comfort in the fact that you have achieved this far. There will be more sacrifices, but even the smallest drops shall be a source of joy.

But the only drops I have left are tears. I am actually hoping that my pail of tears is half full. That way, I know I am half way to fixing myself. But i dont know. I dance at the edge of sanity now, but only because I allowed myself to be madly in love with you. But I will never trade this for the whole world.

My pitcher is already empty. The mug is still half full (half empty?). Still, I am not yet a bit tipsy. And I keep on wondering... Have I just been the fool?

Escapade 1

It was the first time that he had awoken in the wee hours of the morning, oblivious of where he was. the unfamiliar terrain of the dimly-lit room stopped him from jumping out of bed - oh those nice, thick and soft white blankets with the smell of fragrance only hotels (motels?) have, and those dim lights that made things seem surreal, floating, peaceful, albeit gloomy - and relieving himself of his bladder's incessant complaints.

"Where am I? How did I get here?"

A few more seconds later and he was startled by the fact that he was not alone. huddled beside him was a naked woman, her bare back turned towards him with only the white, innocent blanket covering her waist down, her silhouette outlining the curves of her body, seductive as the darkness of the night's mysteries.

"Who is she," he asked himself with the curiosity of a lover, the excitement of a hunter, but the confusion of a child. he buried his head below the pillow, closed his eyes and tried to remember what happened last night (tonight?). He had one too many drinks, that much he was sure of from the dry throbbing inside his head, wanting him to quench his parched throat with water, and the relentless beckoning of his bladder, begging to be relieved of its misery.

My soul is burning, and no amount of water, let alone a river tears, could ever quell the dry flame that's eating me.


Where was he last night? He couldnt remember. it was downtown legazpi. He remembered dim lights, not the kind you find in hotels, but the kind where you can hide behind the blanket of darkness and snuggle with your dirty little secrets and escapades; tables, black round tables, big ones, for friends and large groups, small ones, designed for the exclusivity that every human desire always musters. But all made for instant intimacy, express, disposable and always for a price (sometimes, a price we never bargained for).

So, does this girl with the lovely, seductive silhouette of a curve, come from wherever dim-lit bar he went to that night? everything was blurry. even the snippets of memories he could recall were hazy. She could not have come from there. He wouldn't hire a hooker.

"Oh God," he muttered as he got up and looked for his pack of cigarettes. "Now, where's my pants," he slowly skimmed the room. He found it lying on the floor, sprawled there as if it were hurriedly thrown. He smiled a bit. as he picked it up, he couldn't help but gaze at the woman lying there on the bed, defenseless, innocent and sensual.

He looked at the time fro his Samsung phone. 4:30 AM, it said with precision. There were several missed calls. But he didn't bother to look who called. it wouldn't matter anyway, he thought.

He decided to smoke at the veranda. Although a smoker himself, he hated a room that smelt of tobacco. It suffocates him, much like what a relationship does to you. SO, off he went to the veranda and lit a stick of Marlboro.

 He didn't find this odd, waking up beside a naked woman in the middle of God-knows-where. To him, this was not an impossibility. He had accepted the fact that after his many turbulent relationships, sooner or later he'd find himself searching, longing, and, perhaps, even begging for one that would have no strings attached. Just the kind of thing that you can dispose of after a night stand. He had come to realize that this makes things simpler. No attachment, no responsibility. Just fun.

He was dragged too deep into this shit-hole to even feel concerned about what he was becoming. He was just tired of the drama of being with someone for a long time. It's really amazing how one's life events can change a person. If there's one thing so pervasive that it can even touch the soul, it is change. Change can be a source of growth. But it can also be a harbinger of disaster. But he couldn't care less. not anymore. this was better. no one gets hurt. Everybody is happy. he is happy.

He realized that, although he found himself bewildered as to where he was when he woke up, right now it didn't matter anymore. he could be anywhere. But even anywhere is good. No direction, for anyway, he has come to realize that its better to enjoy the ride. To hell with the destination.What mattered was that he felt free.

He was almost done with his cigarette when he heard her moan. He looked, and she was there staring at him. He could almost see her smile behind those glass doors as she lay there. She beckoned for him. and as he drew closer, he realized she knew her. Always there when you needed her the most. maybe she's also searching deep inside, lost and longing. Just like him. But he'll never really know. In the morning, when the sun rises, they will part, and everything will be just a figment of their imagination. But from that figment arises a sort of deep hope that  they can touch and go again.

But the sun has not yet risen. there is still time to drown the pain, and hopefully find meaning within their empty hearts.

He kissed her. From that moment, he knew everything was going to be alright.