Note 3 — Chapter XXXII

It is thus stated by Concepción (Hist. de Philipinas, xi, p. 280): “With the pretext that the fathers of the Society [of Jesus] had usurped from them cultivated lands, and the untilled lands on the hills, on which they kept enormous herds of horned cattle—for which reason, and because the Jesuits said that these were their own property, they would not allow the natives to supply themselves with wood, rattans, and bamboos, unless they paid fixed prices—the Indians committed shocking acts of hostility on the ranches of Lian and Nasugbu, killing and plundering the tenants of those lands, with many other ravages. Nor did they respect the houses of the [Jesuit] fathers, but attacked and plundered them, and partly burned them, as well as many other buildings independent of these.” All was plundering, rapine, destruction, and debauchery; the natives also rebelled against the exactions from them of tribute and personal services. “The contagion spread to the village of Taal, and more than sparks were discovered in other places, although efforts were made to conceal the fire.” The alcalde-mayor and the Jesuits tried at first to pacify the Indians, urging them to wait for the official visit of Auditor Calderon; but they could do nothing, the natives being rendered only more daring by this attempt. Troops were then sent from Manila against them; in the battle mentioned in our text several were wounded, among them the commanding officer, Sargento-mayor Juan Gonzalez de el Pulgar; but he succeeded in routing the enemy. The chief of the insurgents, one Matienza, took refuge in a church, but was captured and disarmed therein. Reënforcements were sent from Manila, and the rebellion was soon quelled. The leaders of the rebellion were punished in various ways, according to their prominence or influence; some were shot, others sent into exile or to the galleys; and amnesty was granted to the insurgents who would lay down their arms and renew their acknowledgment of vassalage.

To this may be added the following statements by Calderon himself: “By commission of this royal Audiencia, I went to a village outside the walls of this capital, to take measures for the completion of a small bridge, which was being hindered by some dispute, and to pay to Master Alarífe 250 pesos which had been offered to him for its construction. I proceeded to make inquiries regarding the lands and revenues belonging to the village; and I found that all the surrounding estates (on which the people were working) belonged to a certain [F., for Fulano] ecclesiastic, the Indians and mestizos paying him rent not only for these, but for the land occupied by their cabins, at the rate of three pesos a year for the married man, and one and one-half pesos for the widow or the unmarried man. And as it seemed to me that the person who, according to what was evident to my own eyes, was collecting about 30 pesos of land-rent, independently of the estates and houses belonging to him, was the one who rightfully ought to bear the cost of the little bridge, I announced that this cost should be collected from the persons who were owing rents for the lands. Receipts therefor were to be given to them, and orders were issued to the royal judges before whom such cases come first, that they must, if the laymen who make these payments should be accused before them, give the latter credit for these receipts; nor in all this brief summary, and in the measures that I took, would I notice the ecclesiastic who called himself the owner of all.” “In regard to the representations of the convenience for the Indian who has built his hut in the grain-field, I believe that it is quite the contrary, and that it would be more expedient for him and for the commonwealth that he should not be allowed to build it there, or that he be obliged to change his dwelling, for those huts generally serve as refuge for persons bent on mischief; besides, as the Indian thus has no watchful neighbor to inform the religious minister of his doings, and no alcalde, he lives in too much freedom. But, granted that all this comes to an end, what right has the owner of the land to more than the rent from him who occupies it? And if with his pilapis, or pathway, and his house he occupies no more than 50 brazas—for which he has to pay the same as if he had rented a cabalita, which is a thousand brazas—and if he must pay the same rent, then lease to him the cabalita, including therein the house and pilapis; and with this the Indian will have land for planting his young trees, and for making some planting of grain.”

These items are cited from a pamphlet issued (Manila, 1739) by the auditor Pedro Calderón Henríquez, entitled: Discvrso ivridico, en qve se defiende la real iurisdiccion, y se hace demonstracion de la injusticia, que contiene el contrato de arrendamiento de solares en estas islas; in it he “laments the great amount that the Filipinos were paying to the ecclesiastical power.” This seems to have brought out a reply defending the ecclesiastics, Apología por la immvnidad ecclesiastica, y por la licitvd de terrazgos, o alqvileres de tierras segvn la forma, estilo de algvnas estancias de estas islas Philipinas (Manila, 1739); it is significant that this was published from the Jesuit printing-house, and the auditor’s pamphlet from the college of Santo Tomás. Regarding both these, see Vindel’s Catálogo bibl. filipina, nos. 1807, 1808; therein is cited the following paragraph from the Apología:

“48. In the cultivated estates or farms which the Society of Jesus possesses in these islands, the tenants pay nothing for the house-lot which they occupy, with the little garden which their houses are wont to have in addition; but they pay only for the other land which they cultivate. There is, moreover, an order from the superiors that no person shall be allowed on those farms unless he has the charge of some grain-field—and rightly so, since this is the purpose for which admission to the estates is granted to any one; although this does not prevent entire justice being shown to the old men, widows, and other people who are legitimately disabled, by allowing them to remain, as they do, in their houses without paying anything for these and without cultivating a field. Therefore, there is evident falsehood in what is said by a certain [N., used when name is not to be mentioned] author, at the beginning of no. 3, art. 2, in speaking of these estates of the Society—that is, that the tenants pay for the land which they cultivate and for the ground under the houses which they occupy. In Santa Cruz the same observance was in use at the beginning, and it still is followed among the tenants who work on the lands of Mayhaligue adjoining the said village of Santa Cruz, and have their houses in the grain-fields. But as in course of time the Sangley mestizos increased in numbers, and devoted themselves to other occupations—painters, gilders, and silver-smiths, etc., which trades they now exercise with dexterity—and many households were formed, up to the number of about three hundred and eighty, which they now reach, it became necessary to yield to their importunities; and for this college of San Ignacio at Manila to condemn the splendid orchards which it possessed there, and permit the said mestizos to establish therein their dwellings. And, as it is not right that the said college should suffer the heavy damage of losing the said orchards, which had cost it many thousands of pesos, …” ↑