Unit 2.

2Juan de Plasencia, Customs of the Tagalogs

Source:Blair, Emma Helen, ed. d.1911. The Philippine Islands, 1493

-1803; explorations by
early navigators, descriptions the
of islands and their peoples, their history and records of
the Catholic missions, as related in contemporaneous books and manuscripts, showing the
political, economic, commercial and religious conditions of those islands from their earliest
relations withEuropean nations to the beginning of the nineteenth century; [Vol. 1, no. 7]
Blair, Emma Helen, ed. d.1911. pp.-196
173

16th centuryTagalog royalty

Source: Boxer Codex-

http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/metsnav/common/navigate.do?pn=116&size=screen&
oid=VAB8326, Public
Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=18056369

Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or
transmitting in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document,
1
without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited.
 Engage
Customs are ever evolving. We do not expect that a certain way of life will be constant, resistant to
change. You may have heard stories from your elders how their life ways were so different from what you are
presently experiencing. Try to recall some of those old rules, as old as you can get and write them below.
Name one old rule for each realm of human experience.
On Marriage:

On Debt:

On Inheritance:

Explore
The reading that follows is the first of the two part report by Juan de Plasencia and this particular
section was recognized as the first Civil Code of the Philippines. Originally written in Spanish, this document
was translated into English by Frederic w. Morrison.

Customs of the Tagalogs

(TWO RELATIONS BY JUAN DE PLASENCIA, O.S.F.)

After receiving your Lordship's letter, I wished to reply immediately; but I postponed my answer in order that
I might first thoroughly inform myself in regard to your request, and to avoid discussing the conflicting
reports of the Indians, who are wont to tell what suits their purpose. Therefore, to this end, I collected Indians
from different districts—old men, and those of most capacity, all known to me; and from them I have obtained
the simple truth, after weeding out much foolishness, in regard to their government, administration of justice,
inheritances, slaves, and dowries. It is as follows:

CUSTOMS OF THE TAGALOGS

This people always had chiefs, called by them datos, who governed them and were captains in their wars, and
whom they obeyed and reverenced. The subject who committed any offense against them, or spoke but a word
to their wives and children, was severely punished.

These chiefs ruled over but few people; sometimes as many as a hundred houses, sometimes even less than
thirty. This tribal gathering is called in Tagalo a barangay. It was inferred that the reason for giving
themselves this name arose from the fact (as they are classed, by their language, among the Malay nations)
that when they came to this land, the head of the barangay, which is a boat, thus called—as is discussed at
length in the first chapter of the first ten chapters—became a dato. And so, even at the present day, it is
ascertained that this barangay in its origin was a family of parents and children, relations and slaves. There
were many of these barangays in each town, or, at least, on account of wars, they did not settle far from one
another. They were not, however, subject to one another, except in friendship and relationship. The chiefs, in
their various wars, helped one another with their respective barangays.

Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or
transmitting in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document,
2
without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited.
 In addition to the chiefs, who corresponded to our knights, there were three castes: nobles, commoners, and
slaves. The nobles were the free-born whom they call maharlica. They did not pay tax or tribute to the dato,
but must accompany him in war, at their own expense. The chief offered them beforehand a feast, and
afterward they divided the spoils. Moreover, when the dato went upon the water those whom he summoned
rowed for him. If he built a house, they helped him, and had to be fed for it. The same was true when the
whole barangay went to clear up his lands for tillage. The lands which they inhabited were divided among the
whole barangay, especially the irrigated portion, and thus each one knew his own. No one belonging to
another barangay would cultivate them unless after purchase or inheritance. The lands on the tingues, or
mountain-ridges, are not divided, but owned in common by the barangay. Consequently, at the time of the
rice harvest, any individual of any particular barangay, although he may have come from some other village,
if he commences to clear any land may sow it, and no one can compel him to abandon it. There are some
villages (as, for example, Pila de la Laguna) in which these nobles, or maharlicas, paid annually to the dato
a hundred gantas of rice. The reason of this was that, at the time of their settlement there, another chief
occupied the lands, which the new chief, upon his arrival, bought with his own gold; and therefore the
members of his barangay paid him for the arable land, and he divided it, among those whom he saw fit to
reward. But now, since the advent of the Spaniards, it is not so divided.

The chiefs in some villages had also fisheries, with established limits, and sections of the rivers for markets.
At these no one could fish, or trade in the markets, without paying for the privilege, unless he belonged to the
chief's barangay or village.

The commoners are called aliping namamahay. They are married, and serve their master, whether he be a
dato or not, with half of their cultivated lands, as was agreed upon in the beginning. They accompanied him
whenever he went beyond the island, and rowed for him. They live in their own houses, and are lords of their
property and gold. Their children inherit it, and enjoy their property and lands. The children, then, enjoy the
rank of their fathers, and they cannot be made slaves (sa guiguilir) nor can either parents or children be sold.
If they should fall by inheritance into the hands of a son of their master who was going to dwell in another
village, they could not be taken from their own village and carried with him; but they would remain in their
native village, doing service there and cultivating the sowed lands.

The slaves are called aliping sa guiguilir. They serve their master in his house and on his cultivated lands,
and may be sold. The master grants them, should he see fit, and providing that he has profited through their
industry, a portion of their harvests, so that they may work faithfully. For these reasons, servants who are
born in the house of their master are rarely, if ever, sold. That is the lot of captives in war, and of those
brought up in the harvest fields.

Those to whom a debt was owed transferred the debt to another, thereby themselves making a profit, and
reducing the wretched debtors to a slavery which was not their natural lot. If any person among those who
were made slaves (sa guiguilir)—through war, by the trade of goldsmith, or otherwise—happened to possess
any gold beyond the sum that he had to give his master, he ransomed himself, becoming thus a namamahay,
or what we call a commoner. The price of this ransom was never less than five taels, and from that upwards;
and if he gave ten or more taels, as they might agree, he became wholly free. An amusing ceremony
accompanied this custom. After having divided all the trinkets which the slave possessed, if he maintained a
house of his own, they divided even the pots and jars, and if an odd one of these remained, they broke it; and
if a piece of cloth were left, they parted it in the middle.

The difference between the aliping namamahay and the aliping sa guiguilir, should be noted; for, by a
confusion of the two terms, many have been classed as slaves who really are not. The Indians seeing that the
alcaldes-mayor do not understand this, have adopted the custom of taking away the children of the aliping
namamahay, making use of them as they would of the aliping sa guiguilir, as servants in their households,
which is illegal, and if the aliping namamahay should appeal to justice, it is proved that he is an aliping as

Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or
transmitting in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document,
3
without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited.
 well as his father and mother before him and no reservation is made as to whether he is aliping namamahay
or atiping sa guiguilir. He is at once considered an alipin, without further declaration. In this way he
becomes a sa guiguilir, and is even sold. Consequently, the alcaldes-mayor should be instructed to ascertain,
when anyone asks for his alipin, to which class he belongs, and to have the answer put in the document that
they give him.

In these three classes, those who are maharlicas on both the father's and mother's side continue to be so
forever; and if it happens that they should become slaves, it is through marriage, as I shall soon explain. If
these maharlicas had children among their slaves, the children and their mothers became free; if one of them
had children by the slave-woman of another, she was compelled, when pregnant, to give her master half of a
gold tael, because of her risk of death, and for her inability to labor during the pregnancy. In such a case half
of the child was free—namely, the half belonging to the father, who supplied the child with food. If he did not
do this, he showed that he did not recognize him as his child, in which case the latter was wholly a slave. If a
free woman had children by a slave, they were all free, provided he were not her husband.

If two persons married, of whom one was a maharlica and the other a slave, whether namamahay or sa
guiguilir, the children were divided: the first, whether male or female, belonged to the father, as did the third
and fifth; the second, the fourth, and the sixth fell to the mother, and so on. In this manner, if the father were
free, all those who belonged to him were free; if he were a slave, all those who belonged to him were slaves;
and the same applied to the mother. If there should not be more than one child he was half free and half
slave. The only question here concerned the division, whether the child were male or female. Those who
became slaves fell under the category of servitude which was their parent's, either namamahay or sa
guiguilir. If there were an odd number of children, the odd one was half free and half slave. I have not been
able to ascertain with any certainty when or at what age the division of children was made, for each one
suited himself in this respect. Of these two kinds of slaves the sa guiguilir could be sold, but not the
namamahay and their children, nor could they be transferred. However, they could be transferred from the
barangay by inheritance, provided they remained in the same village.

The maharlicas could not, after marriage, move from one village to another, or from one barangay to
another, without paying a certain fine in gold, as arranged among them. This fine was larger or smaller
according to the inclination of the different villages, running from one to three taels and a banquet to the
entire barangay. Failure to pay the fine might result in a war between the barangay which the person left and
the one which he entered. This applied equally to men and women, except that when one married a woman of
another village, the children were afterwards divided equally between the two barangays. This arrangement
kept them obedient to the dato, or chief, which is no longer the case— because, if the dato is energetic and
commands what the religious fathers enjoin him, they soon leave him and go to other villages and other
datos, who endure and protect them and do not order them about. This is the kind of dato that they now
prefer, not him who has the spirit to command. There is a great need of reform in this, for the chiefs are
spiritless and faint-hearted.

Investigations made and sentences passed by the dato must take place in the presence of those of his
barangay. If any of the litigants felt himself aggrieved, an arbiter was unanimously named from another
village or barangay, whether he were a dato or not; since they had for this purpose some persons, known as
fair and just men, who were said to give true judgment according to their customs. If the controversy lay
between two chiefs, when they wished to avoid war, they also convoked judges to act as arbiters; they did the
same if the disputants belonged to two different barangays. In this ceremony they always had to drink, the
plaintiff inviting the others.

They had laws by which they condemned to death a man of low birth who insulted the daughter or wife of a
chief; likewise witches, and others of the same class.

Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or
transmitting in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document,
4
without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited.
 They condemned no one to slavery, unless he merited the death-penalty. As for the witches, they killed them,
and their children and accomplices became slaves of the chief, after he had made some recompense to the
injured person. All other offenses were punished by fines in gold, which, if not paid with promptness, exposed
the culprit to serve, until the payment should be made, the person aggrieved, to whom the money was to be
paid. This was done in the following way: Half the cultivated lands and all their produce belonged to the
master. The master provided the culprit with food and clothing, thus enslaving the culprit and his children
until such time as he might amass enough money to pay the fine. If the father should by chance pay his debt,
the master then claimed that he had fed and clothed his children, and should be paid therefor. In this way he
kept possession of the children if the payment could not be met. This last was usually the case, and they
remained slaves. If the culprit had some relative or friend who paid for him, he was obliged to render the
latter half his service until he was paid—not, however, service within the house as aliping sa guiguilir, but
living independently, as aliping namamahay. If the creditor were not served in this wise, the culprit had to
pay the double of what was lent him. In this way slaves were made by debt: either sa guiguilir, if they served
the master to whom the judgment applied; or aliping namamahay, if they served the person who lent them
wherewith to pay.

In what concerns loans, there was formerly, and is today, an excess of usury, which is a great hindrance to
baptism as well as to confession; for it turns out in the same way as I have showed in the case of the one
under judgment, who gives half of his cultivated lands and profits until he pays the debt. The debtor is
condemned to a life of toil; and thus borrowers become slaves, and after the death of the father the children
pay the debt. Not doing so, double the amount must be paid. This system should and can be reformed.

As for inheritances, the legitimate children of a father and mother inherited equally, except in the case where
the father and mother showed a slight partiality by such gifts as two or three gold taels, or perhaps a jewel.

When the parents gave a dowry to any son, and, when, in order to marry him to a chief's daughter, the dowry
was greater than the sum given the other sons, the excess was not counted in the whole property to be
divided. But any other thing that should have been given to any son, though it might be for some necessity,
was taken into consideration at the time of the partition of the property, unless the parents should declare
that such a bestowal was made outside of the inheritance. If one had had children by two or more legitimate
wives, each child received the inheritance and dowry of his mother, with its increase, and that share of his
father's estate which fell to him out of the whole. If a man had a child by one of his slaves, as well as
legitimate children, the former had no share in the inheritance; but the legitimate children were bound to free
the mother, and to give him something—a tael or a slave, if the father were a chief; or if, finally, anything
else were given it was by the unanimous consent of all. If besides his legitimate children, he had also some
son by a free unmarried woman, to whom a dowry was given but who was not considered as a real wife, all
these were classed as natural children, although the child by the unmarried woman should have been
begotten after his marriage. Such children did not inherit equally with the legitimate children, but only the
third part. For example, if there were two children, the legitimate one had two parts, and the one of the
inaasava one part. When there were no children by a legitimate wife, but only children by an unmarried
woman, or inaasava, the latter inherited all. If he had a child by a slave woman, that child received his share
as above stated. If there were no legitimate or natural child, or a child by an inaasava, whether there was a
son of a slave woman or not, the inheritance went only to the father or grandparents, brothers, or nearest
relatives of the deceased, who gave to the slave-child as above stated.

In the case of a child by a free married woman, born while she was married, if the husband punished the
adulterer this was considered a dowry; and the child entered with the others into partition in the inheritance.
His share equaled the part left by the father, nothing more. If there were no other sons than he, the children
and the nearest relatives inherited equally with him. But if the adulterer were not punished by the husband of
the woman who had the child, the latter was not considered as his child, nor did he inherit anything. It should

Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or
transmitting in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document,
5
without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited.
 be noticed that the offender was not considered dishonored by the punishment inflicted, nor did the husband
leave the woman. By the punishment of the father the child was fittingly made legitimate.

Adopted children, of whom there are many among them, inherit the double of what was paid for their
adoption. For example, if one gold tael was given that he might be adopted when the first father died, the
child was given [in inheritance] two taels. But if this child should die first, his children do not inherit from
the second father, for the arrangement stops at that point.

This is the danger to which his money is exposed, as well as his being protected as a child. On this account
this manner of adoption common among them is considered lawful.

Dowries are given by the men to the women's parents. If the latter are living, they enjoy the use of it. At their
death, provided the dowry has not been consumed, it is divided like the rest of the estate, equally among the
children, except in case the father should care to bestow something additional upon the daughter. If the wife,
at the time of her marriage, has neither father, mother, nor grandparents, she enjoys her dowry—which, in
such a case, belongs to no other relative or child. It should be noticed that unmarried women can own no
property, in land or dowry, for the result of all their labors accrues to their parents.

In the case of a divorce before the birth of children, if the wife left the husband for the purpose of marrying
another, all her dowry and an equal additional amount fell to the husband; but if she left him, and did not
marry another, the dowry was returned. When the husband left his wife, he lost the half of the dowry, and the
other half was returned to him. If he possessed children at the time of his divorce, the whole dowry and the
fine went to the children, and was held for them by their grandparents or other responsible relatives.

I have also seen another practice in two villages. In one case, upon the death of the wife who in a year's time
had borne no children, the parents returned one-half the dowry to the husband whose wife had died. In the
other case, upon the death of the husband, one-half the dowry was returned to the relatives of the husband. I
have ascertained that this is not a general practice; for upon inquiry I learned that when this is done it is
done through piety, and that all do not do it.

In the matter of marriage dowries which fathers bestow upon their sons when they are about to be married,
and half of which is given immediately, even when they are only children, there is a great deal more
complexity. There is a fine stipulated in the contract, that he who violates it shall pay a certain sum which
varies according to the practice of the village and the affluence of the individual. The fine was heaviest if,
upon the death of the parents, the son or daughter should be unwilling to marry because it had been arranged
by his or her parents. In this case the dowry which the parents had received was returned and nothing more.
But if the parents were living, they paid the fine, because it was assumed that it had been their design to
separate the children.

The above is what I have been able to ascertain clearly concerning customs observed among these natives in
all this Laguna and the tingues, and among the entire Tagalo race. The old men say that a dato who did
anything contrary to this would not be esteemed; and, in relating tyrannies which they had committed, some
condemned them and adjudged them wicked.

Others, perchance, may offer a more extended narrative, but leaving aside irrelevant matters concerning
government and justice among them, a summary of the whole truth is contained in the above. I am sending
the account in this clear and concise form because I had received no orders to pursue the work further.
Whatever may be decided upon, it is certainly important that it should be given to the alcal-des-mayor,
accompanied by an explanation; for the absurdities which are to be found in their opinions are indeed
pitiable.

Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or
transmitting in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document,
6
without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited.
 May our Lord bestow upon your Lordship His grace and spirit, so that in every step good fortune may be
yours; and upon every occasion may your Lordship deign to consider me your humble servant, to be which
would be the greatest satisfaction and favor that I could receive. Nagcarlán, October 21, 1589.

Explain
Juan de Plasencia (born in the 16th century in Spain) was a Franciscan Friar who was known to be a
defender of the natives. He was also credited for founding a number of towns in the provinces of Bulacan,
Laguna, and Rizal. In the document you read, he gave a report of the Tagalog society he encountered during
his mission work in the 1580s. This report was given in October 1589 to Santiago de Vera, the chief justice of
the Royal Audiencia and 6th Spanish Governor General in an effort to know the life ways of the natives so as
to better settle disputes relating to the personal affairs of the natives. At that time, one of the objectives of the
colonial authorities was the conversion of the natives to Christianity and figuring out how to best govern them
hence the need for a documentation of sorts about their life ways. Fr. Plasencia died in 1590 at Lilio, Laguna.
He is also credited for writing Doctrina Cristiana, the first book ever printed in the Philippines.

Elaborate
Aside from being a civil code of sorts, the report of Juan de Plasencia also articulated the social
structure prevalent in the Tagalog area during that time. Below is a an empty triangle which you can use to
illustrate the social structure described by Fr. Plasencia. You may draw and label the divisions the way you
understand the social structure.

Evaluate
Exercise once again the skill for doing context and text (content) analysis primary sources for history. Answer
the template below

Context Analysis

Title of the document: _______________________________________________________

Original language of the document:____________________________________________

Language used in Translation: ________________________________________________

Translator : ____________________________________________________
Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or
transmitting in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document,
7
without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited.
 Author’s name: _______________________________________________________________

Birth (Date and Place):________________________________________________________

Death:_________________________________ _______________________________________

Relevant information that link s the author to the primary source:

Date of writing and/or Publication of the original document:

Place Written

Author’s Purpose for writing the document

Social milieu around the time that the event occurred and was written (What was happening in history
around the time that the document was written?)

Who was the intended audience?

Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or
transmitting in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document,
8
without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited.
 Content Analysis
This document became the country’s first Civil Code, used by the alcaldes -mayores in
their administration of justice. Enumerate at least three (3) topics covered and beside
each, write at least one (1) specific rule .

If there are any, what are the personal biases, suspected errors, or misleading
statements of the author that showed up in the document?

Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or
transmitting in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document,
9
without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited.