← Table of contents
The Audiencia in the Spanish Colonies

Chapter X · THE AUDIENCIA AND THE CHURCH: THE ROYAL PATRONAGE

Reading edition

The creation of an audiencia, with judicial and advisory functions, put an end to the exercise of these extraordinary powers by the church and tended to confine its activities to the ecclesiastical field. Nevertheless, the prelates continued to advise the governors in administrative matters throughout the entire history of the Islands. Their influence was especially strong in matters relating to the natives, their government and protection, and the archbishops even went so far at times as to give advice on questions of foreign policy. Most of the time this counsel was solicited and was well received. From 1650 onwards, as we noted in the last chapter, the church waxed exceedingly strong in the Philippines and the prelates not only advised, but dominated governors and audiencias. In 1668, Governor Diego Salcedo was unseated, imprisoned and exiled by the commissary of the Inquisition, while a pliant magistrate of the audiencia took over the government and administered affairs in a manner entirely satisfactory to his ecclesiastical supporters. The period from 1684 to 1690 showed the weakness of the audiencia when opposed by a powerful prelate allied to a hostile governor. And in 1719 the church reached the climax of its power by bringing about the murder of a governor, and then succeeding him, overcoming every opposing element in the colony, including the audiencia. From that time onward the prelates governed during vacancies in the governorship—something which the audiencia had failed to do. Finally, in 1762, Simón de Anda y Salazar assumed the reigns of government and the obligations of defense, an act which was sanctioned technically because he was an oidor but really because he was an able man, capable of accomplishing what the church had failed to do.

In this chapter it is not our purpose to review the historical facts of the relations of the audiencia and the church or the growth of clerical influence over the audiencia. These matters have been referred to in earlier chapters. It is rather the design to study here the influence which the audiencia, in its turn, exercised in ecclesiastical affairs, noting whence it derived its authority and what was the nature of its powers.

The authority which the audiencia exercised jointly with the royal vicepatron was based upon the law ordering

In accordance with this law the audiencia exercised the right of intervention in practically all matters to which the authority of the vicepatron extended. Foremost among these were the supervision and administration of ecclesiastical revenues, the administration of vacant benefices, the extension of missionary influences and the construction of churches and monasteries. The audiencia, moreover, had authority over the reception and installation of prelates, parish priests, and regulars, and their removal for cause. In all these matters the audiencia was responsible directly to the king and made reports thereon; in fact, it may be said that the tribunal, in co-ordination with the vicepatron, served as a connecting link between the church in the Islands and the royal council in Spain.

An analysis of the relations between the audiencia and the church will show that the tribunal exercised two kinds of ecclesiastical powers. These may be regarded respectively as executive and judicial. Although it was in their union that the audiencia exercised its most extensive and far-reaching power of ecclesiastical control, it is advisable for several reasons that these powers should be considered as distinct from one another. They will therefore be discussed separately in this treatise. In this chapter we shall consider only the first of these powers—the one which was most directly concerned with the maintenance of the royal patronage—namely, the authority which the audiencia exercised co-ordinately with the governor in the supervision and control of the church in the colony.

Although there appears to have been no conflict of authority between the governor and the audiencia over their mutual relations under the laws of the royal patronage, it is advisable at the outset to settle one difficulty which may present itself in this connection. Many of these powers which the audiencia exercised were conferred upon the vicepatron exclusively. Indeed, a study of the laws alone would suggest the possibility of a conflict of jurisdiction between the governor and the audiencia in matters relating to the royal patronage. In actual practice, however, the governor shared the powers of ecclesiastical supervision with the audiencia, and their relations were harmonious in all matters appertaining thereto. Indeed, there is record of fewer conflicts between the audiencia and the governor in this field of activity than in any other.

It would seem that the intervention of the audiencia in ecclesiastical matters developed in the same manner and for the same reason as it came to have authority in matters of government, finance and military administration. The manifest impossibility of the successful administration of the many affairs of civil and ecclesiastical government by the governor (or viceroy in New Spain and Perú) made inevitable the division of power, which, though real, was not always formally recognized by the laws. The audiencia was the only body available with which the governor (or viceroy) might share these responsibilities. Its judicial character, and the talent, training, and administrative ability and experience (wider than that of the governor himself) of its members made it the logical institution to which the executive should naturally turn for advice and assistance. Not only did he require counsel, but the moral and physical support of a tribunal of weight and authority was invaluable in dealing with the united forces of a powerful ecclesiastical hierarchy. This is the best possible explanation of that gradual assumption of authority by the audiencia which seems to have been so indefinitely, yet freely conceded, and which apparently grew up neither in conflict with the law nor yet entirely in accord with it, but which, now recognized, and now ignored, was never denied or prohibited.

The cédula of October 6, 1578, in explanation of the various forms of address in the expedition of royal cédulas, was designed to make clear the respective jurisdictions of the vicepatron and the audiencia in ecclesiastical as well as in other governmental affairs. It ordered that

While more than a joint authority with the vicepatron cannot be claimed for the audiencia, and that authority not necessarily coequal, this cédula established beyond question the royal intention of recognizing the audiencia as a support and an aid to the governor. This law applied to all the affairs of government, not pertaining any more extensively to the ecclesiastical than to the administrative sphere, but this cédula, together with what actually happened, may be taken as evidence that the audiencia was meant to have jurisdiction in ecclesiastical affairs when royal cédulas granting or assuming the exercise of such jurisdiction were addressed to it.

All ecclesiastics holding office were first to gain the recognition of the viceroy, president, audiencia or whatever authority might be in charge of the province.

A list of the members of each order was to be furnished by their provincial to the governing authority. Any changes subsequently made in the membership of the orders had to be reported in the same way.

The names of all religious teachers were to be submitted to the audiencia, governor or other authority in control, for inspection and approval.

By this same law the audiencias, viceroys, presidents and tribunals were forbidden to interfere with this judge in the execution of his duties, or to impede the execution or the law in any manner whatsoever. The estates of prelates were thus placed on a basis similar to that occupied by the properties of civilians, which, we have noted, were administered by a special magistrate of the audiencia. This cédula also provided that all money left as a residue, after the debts of the prelates were paid, should be sent to the king for distribution.

The ambitions of the friars to construct monasteries, convents and hospitals, and otherwise to manifest their powers and add to their increasing strength had to be checked frequently. The audiencia was called upon to do this throughout the history of the Islands. Possibly the best illustration of the authority of the audiencia in these matters may be noted in the part which it played in restraining the Augustinians from the further extension of their influence during the period from 1763 to 1778. The entire matter was summarized in the consulta of the Council of the Indies dated December 10, 1777, and the cédula of April 6, 1778, with unfavorable results for the Augustinians.

On November 17, 1770, the provincial of this order applied for permission to construct a convent in Cavite and solicited an appropriation of four thousand pesos for this purpose. It was suggested that the money should be supplied either by the income from vacant benefices or from the profits of the sale of betel to the natives. The provincial laid special claim to royal aid on the extraordinary justification that the convent of his order at Imús, Cavite, had been bombarded and destroyed by the British in 1763. On August 16, 1772, the Council of the Indies referred the matter to the Audiencia of Manila and the tribunal, after an exhaustive investigation of the subject, recommended non-compliance with the provincial’s request. In its report, the audiencia reviewed the former attempts of this order to extend its power and influence. On December 2, 1765, it had tried to obtain permission to construct a convent at Nagtaján, which the audiencia and Fiscal Viana frustrated. The Augustinians tried again on February 20, 1766, asking for permission to build at Bagumbayan. This plan the audiencia was also able to defeat. On August 16, 1772, this same order, impatient at the delay of the Council in answering its petition of November 17, 1770, and still persistent, solicited permission from the governor alone, not alluding to the fact that a petition of this sort was at that time pending before the Council of the Indies. This request was considered in the acuerdo with unfavorable consequences for the Augustinians.

In summary, it may be said that the audiencia possessed joint authority with, but not equal to the vicepatron in the regulation and supervision of religious affairs. As a tribunal, and as an agent of the civil government, the audiencia supported and assisted the vicepatron. At times, indeed, it acted in his stead. We have seen that the audiencia labored in the interests of the royal authority when it passed on the acts of provincial synods and councils, and it inspected bulls and briefs before they were allowed to become operative in the colony. It sought always to bring about a peaceful settlement of disputes between prelates, curates, and religious orders. Acting in the interests of the civil government, the oidores made inspections in the provinces, noting the work of the friars and parish priests in their particular fields, giving special attention to the treatment afforded to the Indians by their ecclesiastical protectors. The tribunal acted as the patron of the royal colleges and universities. It regulated the administration of ecclesiastical finances, devoting especial attention to tithes, obras pías and espolios. And finally, as we have just noted, it was endowed with considerable authority in determining the advisability of authorizing the construction of churches, monasteries, and convents, or of permitting the orders to extend their influence in various parts of the colony. The intervention of the audiencia in these matters was recognized by the court at Madrid and by the ecclesiastics of the Philippines.

Notes in this chapter

Note 1 · Concepción, Historia general, III, 336, et seq. This is discussed in Chapter II of this volume. Original materials exist in A. I., 68–1–32.Note 2 · The royal patronage in the Indies was based on the bulls of Alexander VI, dated May 4, 1493, and November 16, 1501, and on that of Julius IINote 3 · This is a translation of ruego y encargo, which form civil officials were required to employ on all occasions in addressing ecclesiastical oNote 4 · Recopilación, 1–6–47.Note 5 · Ibid., 2–1–10. Laws 11 and 12 of the same title did not in any way diminish the authority of the royal audiencia. Law 11, dated May 16, 1571Note 6 · Concepción, as cited in note 1 of this chapter. Salazar’s arguments are outlined in Chapter II of this treatise.Note 7 · Archbishop Pardo’s well known opposition to the exercise of governmental control on the basis of the royal patronage and his resistance to tNote 8 · Gómez Zamora, Regio patronato, 330 et seq.Note 9 · Ibid., 330–354.Note 10 · Ibid., 378.Note 11 · Recopilación, 1–8–2, 3, 6. A dispute concerning the jurisdiction of the audiencia over the findings of synods arose in 1773 and again in 177Note 12 · Recopilación, 1–9–2, 7, 10.Note 13 · Recopilación, 1–13–23.Note 14 · Ibid., 1–14–1, 20, 42; 3–14–3.Note 15 · Ibid., 1–14–34, 38.Note 16 · Ibid., 44, 67.Note 17 · This law was nullified by the cédula of August 1, 1795, which forbade the intervention of the vicepatron and audiencia in these matters. SeeNote 18 · Ibid., 68.Note 19 · Ibid., 71, 75.Note 20 · Cédula of June 1, 1574, Blair and Robertson, XXI, 27–31.Note 21 · Cédula of November 14, 1603, Blair and Robertson, XXI, 50–52, note.Note 22 · Royal order of April 6, 1609, A. I., 105–2–1.Note 23 · Recopilación, 1–14; 1–7–54.Note 24 · Ibid., 1–7–1, 36.Note 25 · Montero y Vidal, Historia general, I, 357–358. Illustrative of this same authority on the part of the audiencia and the Council of the IndieNote 26 · Recopilación, 1–6–31 and 1–14–12, treat of the admission of foreign prelates and visitors to ecclesiastical posts within the Spanish coloniaNote 27 · Tourón proceeded to China, where he continued his inspection. He revoked many of the privileges of the Spanish friars there and forced theirNote 28 · Arce to Philip III, July 30, 1619, Blair and Robertson, XVIII, 238–239.Note 29 · Díaz, Conquistas, II, 267, et seq.; Martínez de Zúñiga, An historical view, I, 259.Note 30 · Tavora to Philip IV, July 8, 1632, Blair and Robertson, XXIV, 224–228.Note 31 · Corcuera to Philip IV, June 30, 1636, Blair and Robertson, XXVII, 21.Note 32 · The cédula of December 15, 1797, authorized the installation of the Bishop of Nueva Segovia as archbishop in the vacant see of Manila, on thNote 33 · The vicepatron had a right to do this in conjunction with the prelate until August 1, 1795, when authority was bestowed upon the latter withNote 34 · Cédula of August 1, 1795, and of September 16, 1803, A. I., 105–2–10; Recopilación, 1–6, note 17.Note 35 · Recopilación, 1–14–71 to 75; the entire title (14) of this book deals with the general subject of the religious orders. The method of procedNote 36 · Recopilación, 1–14–71, 72. An illustration of the operation of this sort of banishment may be noted in the case of three Augustinian friars Note 37 · This has been discussed in Chapter III of this treatise.Note 38 · Recopilación, 1–14–67.Note 39 · Concepción, Historia general, IX, 190; Montero y Vidal, Historia general, I, 400–401.Note 40 · “Provisores and vicarios generales exercise the ordinary ecclesiastical jurisdiction throughout the entire territory of the diocese and resiNote 41 · Juez-conservador, an ecclesiastical or secular (not civil) judge named by the pope with jurisdiction or power to defend a particular church,Note 42 · Nuns of St. Clare to King, Blair and Robertson, XXVI, 24.Note 43 · Recopilación, 2–31–1, 8; 6–10–8, 9.Note 44 · Le Gentil, in Blair and Robertson, XXVIII, 218.Note 45 · Recopilación, 3–14–28.Note 46 · Guerela to the Council, June 20, 1702, A. I., 68–4–12.Note 47 · Report of Torralba, July 20, 1713, A. I., 68–4–16. Torralba was charged in his residencia with having received bribes from the Franciscans fNote 48 · Royal decree of February 14, 1713, A. I., 68–4–18.Note 49 · Recopilación, 1–14–42 to 46; 1–7–21 to 31; 1–6–49; 2–15–146 and 147.Note 50 · Royal decree of December 31, 1622, Blair and Robertson, XX, 253.Note 51 · Recopilación, 2–18–18.Note 52 · King to the Audiencia, April 6, 1778, A. I., 105–2–9.Note 53 · Información, a legally-attested document establishing proof of some act or crime (Escriche, Diccionario, II, 156). In the broader sense an iNote 54 · Recopilación, 2–23–13, 12, 15.Note 55 · King to the Audiencia, July 1, 1598, A. I., 105–2–1.Note 56 · King to the Audiencia, December 7, 1610, Blair and Robertson, XVII, 151–152.Note 57 · King to the Audiencia, August 17, 1628, A. I., 105–2–1.Note 58 · Recopilación, 1–14–1.Note 59 · Ibid., 1–14–31 to 34, 38, 40, 91, 92; 2–33–11 to 15. Hundreds of these reports appear in A. I., 105–2–1 to 10.Note 60 · Recopilación, 1–14–2, 3, 4.Note 61 · Ibid., 1–14–90, 91, 20. Missionaries were so badly needed in the colonies in the sixteenth century that they were sent free of expense. The Note 62 · Recopilación, 3–14–4.Note 63 · Ibid., 1–22–7.Note 64 · Ibid., 19.Note 65 · Ibid., 1–22–53.Note 66 · Audiencia to Felipe II, June 25, 1588, Blair and Robertson, VI, 318. The Jesuits, on July 8, 1598, again requested permission to bestow the Note 67 · Montero y Vidal, Historia general, I, 283–294; Pastel-Colín, Labor evangélica, III, 414–418.Note 68 · Cédula of June 30, 1778, A. I., 105–2–9.Note 69 · The college of Santo Tomás was founded on August 15, 1619, eighteen years after the foundation of the rival college of the Jesuits. Due largNote 70 · Blair and Robertson, XXXVIII, 78–80.Note 71 · A number of testimonios exist in A. I., 105–2–6 bearing on suits of natives and Chinese mestizos who aspired to enter the royal university. Note 72 · Ecclesiastical tithes (diezmos), according to Martínez Alcubilla, were “taxes upon the products of the earth which the producers paid from tNote 73 · Recopilación, 1–16–11, 3.Note 74 · Ibid., 13.Note 75 · Ibid., 24; also Real Ordenanza de Intendentes de Nueva España, Art., 193.Note 76 · Royal order of September 25, 1768, A. I., 107–5–23; see also Royal decree of July 9, 1785, A. I., 106–2–15.Note 77 · Testimonios accompanying auto of December 11, 1775, A. I., 105–2–9.Note 78 · King to the Audiencia, July 12, 1778, A. I., 105–2–9.Note 79 · Decree of January 20, 1786, repromulgated December 16, 1796, A. I., 105–2–10. While the laws of the Indies make no mention of the requiremenNote 80 · Montero y Vidal, Historia general, III, 179; also King to the Audiencia, October 6, 1792, A. I., 105–2–10.Note 81 · Aguilar to Soler, July 31, 1799, A. I., 107–5–23.Note 82 · On August 17, 1853, the superintendent of real hacienda of Manila made an effort to revive the payment of tithes, which practice had become Note 83 · While the temporalities were originally the endowments of the sovereign for the support of the clergy, in the Philippines at this time they Note 84 · Cédula of January 22, 1803, A. I. 107–5–29.Note 85 · A very instructive and hitherto unexplored field of investigation lies in the reports of the different officials and bodies in the colonies Note 86 · Martínez Alcubilla, Diccionario, X, 719. The obras pías were charitable associations or corporations, usually under ecclesiastical control, Note 87 · By 1660, the Misericordia had received in contributions the sum of 356,363 pesos. In 1619, the treasury at Manila had become so exhausted byNote 88 · Cédula of November 8, 1747, with testimonios of previous correspondence, A. I., 106–5–8.Note 89 · Informe del Contador de Cuentas del Consejo de Indias, 31 de Enero de 1755, A. I., 106–5–8.Note 90 · Cédula of April 19, 1755, A. I., 106–5–8.Note 91 · Arandía to the King, July 24, 1757, A. I., 106–5–8.Note 92 · Cédula of February 21, 1759, A. I., 106–5–8.Note 93 · King to the Audiencia, April 25, 1778, A. I., 105–2–9.Note 94 · Cédula of August 2, 1787, A. I., 105–2–10.Note 95 · Aguilar to the King, July 20, 1804, A. I., 107–5–29.Note 96 · The capital of the society was at that time estimated at 151,625 pesos.Note 97 · King to the Audiencia and Consulado, June 7, 1775, A. I., 105–2–9.Note 98 · The term espolio was applied to the properties which archbishops and bishops left at the time of their death, such property having accumulatNote 99 · Recopilación, 1–7–38, 39.Note 100 · Ibid., 37, 40.Note 101 · Cédula of June 24, 1712, A. I., 68–4–17; Recopilación, 1–7, note 8.Note 102 · Auto de Espolio of Bishop Gorospe, May 28, 1715, A. I., 68–4–18.Note 103 · In the colonial bishoprics the temporary successor of a deceased prelate was usually designated by the local diocesan chapter. If, as was thNote 104 · A fairly typical example of an espolio was that of Bishop Arévalo of Nueva Cáceres, rendered by the audiencia on July 19, 1759. The total suNote 105 · Real Ordenanza de Intendentes de Nueva España, Artículos 227, 228, 229.Note 106 · Recopilación, 1–3–1; 1–4–25.Note 107 · Ibid., 1–2–14.Note 108 · Fajardo to the King, August 15, 1620, Blair and Robertson, XIX, 163.Note 109 · King to the Audiencia, June (?) 1604, A. I., 105–2–1.Note 110 · King to the Audiencia, October 30, 1634, A. I., 105–2–1.Note 111 · Recopilación, 1–3–1, 1–6–2. The expediente covering this case is in A. I., 105–3–1. The cédula of April 6, 1778, and testimonios are in A. INote 112 · See Cunningham, “Origin of the friar lands question in the Philippines,” in The American political science review, X (August, 1916) pp. 465–Note 113 · Recopilación, 1–4–20.Note 114 · Ibid., 1–2–20.Note 115 · The audiencia was established as the ultimate local authority, co-ordinate with the governor (or the viceroy in New Spain or Perú), for enfoNote 116 · our viceroys, presidents, oidores and governors of the Indies to see, guard, and fulfill (the laws), and in the provinces, towns, and churchNote 117 · when our royal cédulas refer in particular to the viceroys, they alone shall attend to their fulfillment without other intervention; if theyNote 118 · The right of the officials of the civil government to interfere in questions of patronage was seldom seriously questioned by the churchmen, Note 119 · In considering this question, the calm and impartial judgment of a scholar is eminently preferable to the passionate arguments of a prelate Note 120 · Notwithstanding the fact that the governor was the civil head of the church in the colony, it would be possible to fill this chapter completNote 121 · The audiencia was authorized to enforce the law which forbade laymen to trade with priests. Punishment in the latter case was not meted out Note 122 · The following brief summary of laws of the early period, although possibly repeating data already given, shows the extent of the participatiNote 123 · The audiencia was instructed to inform itself relative to the efficiency of the clergy and of religious teachers working among the Indians, Note 124 · Notices of removals or of new appointments made among the clergy were to be sent to the governor, audiencia, and to the bishop.22Note 125 · The jurisdiction of the audiencia under the royal patronage extended to practically all classes of churchmen and church affairs.23 By the céNote 126 · Two striking illustrations of the audiencia’s jurisdiction over the inspection of the credentials of the prelates and higher churchmen occurNote 127 · A similar case occurred in 1704, when Archbishop Tourón, a French delegate destined for China, arrived in Manila. He was received by the govNote 128 · In its joint capacity as assistant to the vicepatron and as a high court with jurisdiction over ecclesiastical cases, the audiencia settled Note 129 · The above may be considered as a typical case of the temporary designation of a prelate for the archbishopric of Manila by the audiencia. ToNote 130 · The audiencia exercised intervention in the removal of curates from their parishes.33 As noted, already, these removals were made by the vicNote 131 · A great many reasons for removals were purely ecclesiastical, such as questions of the private lives and conduct of priests and friars and tNote 132 · The operation of the removal of regulars for cause was slightly different. Unless the regular was the holder of a parish and subject to episNote 133 · The crimes of priests or ecclesiastics against the law and order of the realm were punishable in the same manner and by the same agency as tNote 134 · The statement has been made above that the audiencia was not allowed to interfere in the internal régime of the convents or monasteries.38 HNote 135 · The disciplinary jurisdiction over priests and friars referred to above suggests a similar authority which the audiencia exercised over the Note 136 · As visitors of the provinces, the oidores were required to inspect the ecclesiastical work of the parish priests and to note their care and Note 137 · The above testimony is not corroborated, however, by the report of Oidor Francisco Guerela who was sent to Camarines in 1702 to take accountNote 138 · An inspection which was similar to that just described was made by Oidor José Torralba, in 1713, in the provinces of Albay and Cebú. TorralbNote 139 · That the interests of the friars were vigorously and effectively championed at the court is evidenced by the royal decree of June 14, 1714, Note 140 · Not only were the oidores required to inspect the work of the parish priests, but the audiencia, in the exercise of the royal patronage, wasNote 141 · The statement has frequently been made in this treatise that the audiencia served as a connecting link between the court and the colony. It Note 142 · To indicate the vast field of special subjects in which the oidores were required to report, various instances may be mentioned. On July 1, Note 143 · It is interesting to know that the churchmen were also held responsible for this information and that reports on these same subjects were reNote 144 · Another function which the audiencia came to exercise by virtue of its authority in behalf of the royal patronage was that of general supervNote 145 · The audiencia early exercised advisory powers in educational affairs. The Jesuits as early as 1585 had requested permission to found and estNote 146 · When Santo Tomás became a royal university in 1648, the Jesuits were obliged to sue in the audiencia for the right to continue the bestowal Note 147 · The Dominicans were more successful in the maintenance of an educational institution.69 On the occasion of the extension of the charter of tNote 148 · Reports, recommendations, and informaciones exist in abundance to prove that the audiencia exercised considerable influence in the life and Note 149 · As we have already noted, the audiencia exercised jurisdiction over matters of church finance. The most notable examples of its control may Note 150 · The audiencia was authorized to guard the royal interest in the matter of the collection and the administration of tithes, particularly withNote 151 · Further evidence that the audiencia was regarded as the instrument of the royal will in these matters is afforded by the circumstances leadiNote 152 · By subsequent laws the audiencia was temporarily deprived of its jurisdiction over tithes. When the Philippine government was reorganized inNote 153 · It may be said, however, that with the creation of the superintendency the audiencia was shorn of many of the miscellaneous functions with wNote 154 · Nevertheless, the audiencia’s share of direct control over these funds was still considerable. On January 23, 1803, a cédula was issued ordeNote 155 · The audiencia also audited the accounts of the obras pías, though its jurisdiction over these funds was often opposed.86 The chief foundatioNote 156 · The suspicions of the general public were confirmed, and the popular distrust increased when the inspection of Oidor Calderón revealed that Note 157 · On April 19, 1755, the cédula of November 9, 1747, was modified on the basis of these protests, and in lieu of the annual inspection of the Note 158 · The Misericordia maintained a stubborn and vigorous resistance to the principle of visitation by the audiencia, but as far as may be judged Note 159 · The cédula of February 21, 1759, was reaffirmed on repeated occasions when the Misericordia refused to submit its books to the audiencia. ThNote 160 · Not only was the opposition of the Misericordia a source of dispute between that society and the audiencia, but the matter of financial inspNote 161 · Shortly after the establishment of the consulado of Manila in 1769, a bitter dispute arose between that body and the audiencia for jurisdictNote 162 · The audiencia and the governor had supervision over espolios and vacant benefices.98 When a prelate entered into office it was his duty to fNote 163 · The espolio of a deceased prelate was taken, according to the early laws, by an official of the royal treasury, who was designated by the prNote 164 · private judge, who, with the concurrence of the oficiales reales, should have jurisdiction over and should proceed against, receive and collNote 165 · In view of the above-mentioned law, the practice followed in 1715, on the death of Bishop Gorospe of Nueva Segovia, seems to have been a dirNote 166 · The significant feature of this espolio is that it was taken by an official as inferior in rank as an alcalde mayor through the express authNote 167 · The citation or further multiplication of data relative to espolios would be monotonous and unprofitable. Sufficient has been said already tNote 168 · The audiencia exercised joint authority with the vicepatron over questions relating to the construction of churches and the conservation of Note 169 · A large number of communications written to the audiencia by the royal authorities exist, illustrating the nature and extent of the influencNote 170 · The report of the audiencia was forwarded to the court and was there reviewed by Francisco Leandro de Viana, formerly fiscal of the AudienciNote 171 · It will be noted in another connection that the audiencia was called upon, from 1680 to 1720, partly as a tribunal of justice and partly as
Explore with AITake your curiosity a little further.

Reading settings