Rizal’s Social Origin and Historical Context

RIZAL’S CHINESE ANCESTRY

Within the walls of Intramuros lived the Spanish rulers and few other persons
who the fear and jealousy of the Spaniards allowed to come in. Some were Filipinos
who ministered to the needs of the Spaniards, but a greater numbers were the Sangleys
or Chinese, the mechanics in all trades and excellent workmen.
Domingo Lam-co was a native of the Chinchew district, where the Jesuits first,
and later the Dominicans, had a mission, and he perhaps knew something of
Christianity before leaving China. One church account indicated his home, for it
specified Siongque, an agricultural community near the great city. He was baptized in
the Parian church of San Gabriel on a Sunday in June of 1697. Following the customs
of the other converts on the same occasion, Lam-co took the name Domingo, the
Spanish for Sunday, in honor of the day.
Domingo Lam-co was influential in building Tubigan barrio, one of the richest
parts of the great estate. In name and appearance, it recalled the fertile plains that
surrounded his native Chinchew, "the city of springs." His neighbors were mainly
Chinchew men; his wife was also from Chinchew, She was Inez de la Rosa. They were
married in the Parian church by the same priest, who over 30 years before, had
baptized Domingo. Lam-co and his wife suffered a great loss in 1741 when their baby
daughter, Josepha Didnio, lived only for five (5) days. They had at that time one other
child, a boy of ten, Francisco Mercado, whose Christian name was given partly because
he had an uncle of the same name. Among the Chinese, the significance of a name
counts much, and it is always safe to seek a reason for the choice of a name. The Lam-
co family was not given to the practice of taking the names of their god - parents.
"Mercado" recalls an honest Spanish encomendero. "Mercado" and "Merchant" mean
much the same; Francisco, therefore, set out in life with a surname that would free him
from the prejudice that followed those with Chinese names reminding of his Chinese
ancestry (Wickberg, 2000).

LIBERALIZING HEREDITARY INFLUENCE

Francisco Mercado lived near enough to hear of the "cajas abiertas" (exiles) and
their ways. He did not live in a Jesuit parish but in the neighboring hacienda of St. John
the Baptist of Calamba. Everybody in his neighborhood knew that the estate had been
purchased with money left in Mexico by pious Spaniards who wanted to see Christianity
spread in the Philippines, and it seemed to them sacrilege that the government should
take such property for its own secular uses. Francisco Mercado was a bachelor,
therefore, more free to visit Manila and Cavite, and he was possibly the more likely to
be interested in political matters. He married on May 26, 1771 Bernarda Monicha, a
Chinese mestiza of the neighboring hacienda of San Pedro Tunasan (Craig, 2005 pp.
59 -- 62)
Mr. and Mrs. Francisco Mercado had two children, both boys, Juan and
Clemente. In 1783, he was an alcalde or chief officer of the town, and he lived till 1801.
His name appears so often as godfather in the registers of baptisms and weddings that
he must have been a good natured, liberal, and popular man. Mrs. Francisco survived
her husband by a number of years and helped to nurse through his baby ailments a
grandson also named Francisco, the Father of Jose Rizal. Francisco Mercado's eldest
son, Juan, built a fine house in the center of Bihan.
At 22, Juan married a girl of "Illbigan, who was two (2) years his senior, Cirila
Alejandra, daughter of Domingo Lam-co's Chinese godson, Siong-co. Cirilais father's
silken garments were preserved by the family within living memory, and this is likely
because Jose Rizal was, Siong-co's great grandson (Craig, 68 - 73). Juan Mercado was
three times chief officer of Bifian in 1808, 1813, and 1815 (Craig, 68 — 73).
Young Francisco was only eight (8) years old when his father died, but his
mother and sister Potenciana looked after him well. First he attended a Bifian Latin
school, and later he seemed to have studied Latin and Philosophy at the College of San
Jose in Manila. A sister, Petrona, for some years was a dress goods merchant in nearby
Calamba. There, she later married and shortly after became widowed. Probably, upon
their mother's death, Potenciana and Francisco moved to Calamba.
Francisco, in spite of his youth, became a tenant of the estate. The landlords
early recognized the agricultural skill of the Mercados by further allotments, as they
could bring more land under cultivation. A year after his sister Potenciana's death,
Francisco Mercado married Teodora Alonzo, a native of Manila, who for several years
had been residing with her mother in Calamba. er father, Lorenzo Alberto, was is said to
have been very Chinese in appearance. He had a._brother who was a priest, and a
sister, Isabel, who was quite wealthy. Their mother, Maria Florentina was on her
mother's side, of the famous Florentina family of Chinese mestizo originating from
Baliwag, Bulacan, and her father was Captain Mariano Alejandro of Bifian. Lorenzo
Alberto was the municipal captain of Bifian in 1824. The grandfathervCaptain Gregorio
Alonzo, was a native of Quiotan barrio, and he was municipal captain twice, in 1763 and
again in 1768. Captain Lorenzo was educated to be a surveyor. e was wealthy and had
invested a considerable sum of money with the American Månila shipping firms of
Peele, Hubbell and Co., and Russell Sturgis and Co. The most obscure part of the
Rizal's family tree was the Ochoa branch, the family of the maternal grandmother, for all
the archives (church, land, and court) disappeared during the ate-disturbed conditions
of which Cavite was the center (Craig, p. 70-71).
Regina Ochoa, who became the wife of attorney Manuel de Quintos, was of
Spanish, Chinese, and Tagalog ancestry. Manuel de Quintos was an attorney of
Lingayen and an uncle was the leader of the Chinese mestizos in a protest they had
made against the arbitrariness of their provincial governor. The home of the Quintoses
was in San Pedro Macati at the time of Captain Novales's uprising, the so-called
American revolt, a protest the Peninsulars sent out to supersede the Mexican offers that
had remained loyal to Spain. All the branches of Mrs. Rizal's family were much richer
than the relatives of her husband; there were numerous lawyers and priests among
them, the old-time proofs of social standing, and they were influential in the country. To
recall relatives of Mrs. Rizal who were in the professions would help to an
understanding of the prominence of the family. Felix Florentino, an uncle, was the first
clerk of the Nueva Segovia (Vigan) court. A cousin -- germane, Jose Florentino, was a
Philippine deputy in the Spanish cortes, and a lawyer of note, as was also his brother,
Manuel. The priest of Rosario, Vicar of Batangas Province, Father Leyva, was a half-
blood relation, and another priestly relative was Mrs. Rizal's paternal uncle, Father
Alonzo (Craig, pp. 72-73).
Mrs. Rizal was baptized in Santa Cruz, Manila on November 18, 1827, as
Teodora Morales Alonzo. She was given an exceptionally good fundamental education
by her gifted mother and completed her training at Santa Rosa College, Manila, which
was in charge of Filipino sisters.

THE CHINESE MESTIZO

Jose Rizal’s Chinese descent came from his maternal grandfather, Manuel de
Quintos, a Chinese mestizo who had been a well—known lawyer in Manila. Both Don
Lorenzo and his father, Don Cipriano, had been mayors of Bifiang. On the other hand,
Jose descended from an industrious and intelligent Chinese merchant, Domingo Lam-
co, who married a Chinese mestiza, Ines dela Rosa. From the Parian the family
migrated to Bifian and became tenants in the Dominican estate. Lam-co's only son,
Francisco who was to be Rizal's great grandfather, was a keen-witted and liberal young
man. He became quite well-to-do and popular enough to be appointed municipal
captain of Bifian in 1783.
Early in the 15th century, Chinese mestizos were already established in the
region, particularly in Luzon. The Chinese had been significantly involved in the
economic and social affairs of the Philippines. Direct contact between China and the
Philippines existed from at least the Sung Period (960-1279). Through the junk trade
several points in the Philippines enjoyed regular commercial and cultural contacts with
the Chinese.
The arrivals of the Spanish conquerors in the Philippines in the 1560s meant new
opportunities for the Chinese. By 1603, barely 32 years after the founding of Manila as a
Spanish settlement, the Chinese population there was estimated at 20,000 in contrast to
perhaps 1,000 Spaniards. They were classified separately into four categories by the
Spanish government in the Philippines: those who did not pay any tribute (which
included Spaniards and Spanish mestizos), indios (Malayan inhabitants of the
archipelago who are now called Filipinos), Chinese, and Chinese mestizos. The last
three of these groups were considered tribute-paying classes, but the amount of their
tribute-payments and the services demanded of them varied. Normally, the indio paid
the lowest. The Chinese mestizo paid double the tribute paid by the indio. The
maintenance of these categories in orderly fashion was provided by the Spanish
legislation. Legal status - as Chinese, mestizo, indio - by the terms of its legislation, was
not ordinarily a matter of personal choice or orientation. Rather, it was the status of the
parents, particularly the father, that was the most important. Thus, the son of a Chinese
father and an india or mestiza mother was classified as a Chinese mestizo. Subsequent
male descendants were inalterably Chinese mestizos. The status of female
descendants was determined by their marriages. A mestiza marrying a Chinese or
mestizo remained in the mestizo classification, as did her children. But by marrying an
indio, she and her children became in that classification. Thus, females of the mestizo
group could change status, but males could not.. The implications of this system were
that so long as legislation remained constant there would always be a sizeable group of
people legally classified as mestizos (Wickerberg, 1964, pp. 64-66).
 Purely in terms of his ancestry, Rizal might be considered a fifth-generation
Chinese mestizo. His paternal ancestor, a Catholic Chinese named Domingo Lam-co,
married a Chinese mestiza. Their son and grandson both married Chinese mestizas.
This grandson, having achieved wealth and status in his locality, was able to have his
family transferred from the mestizo pardon, or tax census register, to that of the indios.
Thus, Rizal's father and Rizal himself were considered an indio (Craig, p. 41).
The development of Chinese mestizo in the Philippines can be understood by
first considering briefly certain features of the history of the Chinese in the Philippines.
When the Spaniards arrived in 1521, the Chinese moved into an important economic
position. Chinese merchants carried on a rich trade between Manila and the China
coast and distributed the imports from China to the area of Central Luzon, to the
immediate north of Manila. The Chinese established themselves at or near Spanish
settlements, serving them in various ways: as provisionary of food, as retail traders, and
as artisans (Wickerberg, 1964, pp. 3-5).
Binondo was founded as a Chinese town in 1594. A royal order was passed for
the expulsion of all Chinese from the Philippines; however, Governor Dasmarinas
realized that the city of Manila, the largest Spanish settlement, necdcd to retain at least
a small group of Chinese for its economic services. Therefore, he purchased a tract of
land across the river from the walled city and gave it to a group of prominent Chinese
merchants and artisans as the basis for a new Chinese settlement. In thc beginning,
religious and cultural questions were not involved, but the missionary enterprise of
Spanish Dominican fathers soon made Binondo a kind of acculturation laboratory where
the Dominicans made it a community of married Catholic Chinese. On the other hand,
non-Catholics in areas within Binondo were proselytized, baptized, married, and added
to the community of married Catholics, reaching five hundred or more in 1600. The
Chinese had founded Binondo on the basis of Dasmarinas' land grant to be tax free and
inalienable to non-Chinese and non mestizos. The grant was accompanied by limited
self-governing privileges. Thus, during the 17th century, Binondo was intended to be a
settlement for Catholic Chinese and their mestizo descendants. However, Indios began
to settle in Binondo. The eventual result was the formation Of the separate
communities, mestizos, and indios within Binondo. Later, when the mestizo population
grew and became the leading element in Binondo, they broke away from the Chinese
forming their own Gremio de Mestizo de Binondo in 1741. By 1741, the Chinese
mestizos had been recognized as a distinct element in Philippine society, sufficiently
numerous to be organized and classified separately, and they were bulked in three
central Luzon provinces of Tondo, Bulacan, and Pampanga, comprising 60% of the
mestizos in the Philippines. The province of Tondo alone accounted for almost 30% of
the mestizo population in the Philippines. But away from Central Luzon, there were no
large concentrations of mestizos. Some mestizos are in some other parts of Luzon but
in the Visayas and Mindanao, very few were accounted for. Indeed, 90% lived in Luzon
while the 10% were spread in few spots on the other islands — notably the provinces of
Cebu, Iloilo, Samar, and Capiz. By the middle of the 19th century, the position of the
Chinese mestizo in Philippine economy and society was firmly established, 1750-1850
which brought some interesting changes 'in their geographic distribution, Though they
were still numerous in Central Luzon they began to be noticed in farther Luzon -- Abra,
and especially in Nueva Ecija. In the Visayas, the largest group of mestizo before was in
Cebu, but afterward there were a number of them in Antique. In Mindanao, they were
already noticed in the eastern part of the island (Caraga province) and in Misamis
(Wickerberg, 1964).
In terms of economic position, it became stronger than ever. Not only did they
have substantial land interests, but they were well on the way to monopolizing internal
trading with only the provincial governors as their competitors. Manila's retail commerce
was handled exclusively by the Chinese mestizo and the Chinese. Theyalso had the
majority of artisan's shops and were active in urban wholesaling. They were even
described by Bowring, a noted historian, upon his visit to the Philippines, as being the
most industrious, preserving, and economical element in the Philippine population.
It was the mestizos who made Cebu wealthy. From Cebu, the mestizos sent their
purchasing agents eastward to Leyte and Samar, southward to Caraga and Misamis,
and westward to Negros and Panay to buy up local products for sale to foreign
merchants in Manila. They bought up tobacco, sea slugs and mother-of-pearls, cacao,
coconut oil, coffee, and wax, among some other precious native products. Mestizos in
the other parts in the Visayas had their own ships and had invested in the trade. It was
even noted that the mestizo's strength in these engaging economic activities made the
Philippines known to some other parts of the world. Products were exported to overseas
markets. Philippine products, like the hemp and sugar, had already been exported in'
quantity while the products of European factory industry, particularly the English textiles,
began to find markets in the Philippines.
The rise of the mestizo to economic importance was paralleled by a rise in social
prominence. Indeed, the mestizo's wealth and the way they spent it made them, in a
sense, the arbiters of fashion in Manila and in the other large settlements. Although they
built up their savings, sometimes into real fortunes, the Chinese mestizos were fond of
gambling and ostentation, especially in dress. Besides entertaining friends and others
with sumptuous feasts, mestizo families often expended great sums of money on feast
days. Hence, a great prestige came to be attached to the name mestizo. Indeed, there
were some places in Central Luzon where everyone in the region claimed to be
mestizo. The best illustration of this kind of mestizo-craze attitude might be found in the
character of Capitan Tiago in Rizal's novel. Capitan Tiago is an excellent example of an
indio cacique of means who wished to be regarded as a Chinese mestizo and was able
to purchase for himself a place in the wealthy and famous Cremio de Mestizos de
Binondo (Wickerberg, 1964).
However, not all indios admire the mestizos. Because of this lack of admiration,
there were a number of petty disputes between the mestizo and indio gremios and their
litigation dragged on over the decades. With the rise of the mestizos to a position of
affluence and prestige, their relations with the indios became a matter of increasing
concern to the Spaniards. It was from this time - the middle of the 19th century — that
we began to find the "divide and rule" theme in Spanish writings. The indios and
mestizo must be kept separated. The brains and money of the mestizos must not be
allowed to become allied to the numerical strength of the indios. The separate gremios
should be maintained and their rivalries encouraged wherever possible. From this time
onward, Spanish conservatives were haunted by fears of an indio revolution led by the
mestizos. The last half of the 19th century was a so-called period of occupational also
had the majority of artisan's shops and were active in urban wholesaling. They were
even described by Bowring, a noted historian, upon his visit to the Philippines, as being
the most industrious, preserving, and economical element in the Philippine population. It
was the mestizos who made Cebu wealthy From Cebu, the mestizos sent their
purchasing agents eastward to Leyte and Samar, southward to Caraga and Misamis,
and westward to Negros and Panay to buy up local products for sale to foreign
merchants in Manila. They bought up tobacco, sea slugs and mother-of-pearls, cacao,
coconut Oil, coffee, and wax, among some Other precious native products. Mestizos in
the Other Parts in the Visayas had their own ships and had invested in the trade. It was
even noted that the mestizo's strength in these engaging economic activities made the
Philippines known to some other parts of the world. Products were exported to overseas
markets. Philippine products, like the hemp and sugar, had already been exported
quantity while the products of European factory industry, particularly the English textiles,
began to find markets in the Philippines. The rise of the mestizo to economic
importance was paralleled by a rise in social prominence. Indeed' the mestizo's wealth
and the way they spent it made them, in a sense, the arbiters Of fashion in Manila and
in the other large settlements. Although they built up their savings, sometimes into real
fortunes, the Chinese mestizos were fond of gambling and ostentation, especially in
dress. Besides entertaining friends and others with sumptuous feasts, mestizo families
often expended great sums of money on feast days. Hence, a great prestige came to be
attached to the name mestizo. Indeed, there were some places in Central Luzon where
everyone in the region claimed to be mestizo. The best illustration of this kind of
mestizo-craze attitude might be found in the character of Capitan Tiago in Rizal's novel.
Capitan Tiago is an excellent example of an indio cacique of means who wished to be
regarded as a Chinese mestizo and was able to purchase for himself a place in the
wealthy and famous Cremio de Mestizos de Binondo (Wickerberg, 1964).
However, not all indios admire the mestizos. Because of this lack of admiration,
there were a number of petty disputes between the mestizo and indio gremios and their
litigation dragged on over the decades. With the rise of the mestizos to a position of
affluence and prestige, their relations with the indios became a matter of increasing
concern to the Spaniards. It was from this time - the middle of the 19th century -- that
we began to find the "divide and rule" theme in Spanish writings. The indios and
mestizo must be kept separated. The brains and money of the mestizos must not be
allowed to become allied to the numerical strength of the indios. The separate gremios
should be maintained and their rivalries encouraged wherever possible. From this time
onward, Spanish conservatives were haunted by fears of an indio revolution led by the
mestizos. The last half of the 19th century was a so-called period of occupational
Rearrangement and social Filipinization. To a large extent, these two phenomena were
the results of changes in Spanish policy in the middle and late 19th century. Free
enterprise was to be given an opportunity to make the Philippines a profitable colony for
Spain. As part of this general policy, in 1844, the Spanish government revoked the
indulto de comercio and henceforth forbade Spanish officials to involve themselves in
trading. This measure eliminated the last obstacle of the mestizo in their dominance in
international trade. Furthermore, Spanish policy also pushed aside the barriers to
Chinese immigration and residence. Thus, the Chinese could come to the Philippines
without any restriction as to number, and with little, if any, restriction as to where in the
archipelago they might reside. By the 1880s, the Chinese population had soared to
almost 100,000; the Chinese were found in every corner of the Philippines (Wickerberg,
1964).

AGRARIAN RELATION AND THE FRIAR LANDS

It was until the 20th century that monastic haciendas were the dominant form of
land tenure in the region surrounding Manila. Throughout most of the 333 years of
Spanish colonization in the Philippines, ecclesiastical estates occupied nearly 40% of
the surface area in the four Tagalog-speaking provinces, namely, Bulacan, Tondo (now
known as Rizal), Cavite, and Laguna de Bay. An understanding of the history of the friar
lands within the Tagalog region would help us understand the many revolts and
eventually the Philippine Revolution of 1896 that happened in history. Some American
officials noted that the estates somehow served as an overriding source of the revolt.
According to documents, on the eve of the Philippine Revolution of 1896, four religious
orders owned at least 21 haciendas in the provinces surrounding Manila. Seven years
later, 1903, the American colonial government, fearful of further outbreaks of agrarian
unrest if friar land-ownership continued, bought 17 of these estates for division and sale
to the Filipinos while four (4) of them remained. Three decades later they were to
become principals in the Sakdal uprising of 1936. Over the next few years, the Church
sold the last remaining estates largely to the Philippine government (Roth, 1982).
Among the four religious orders, the Dominicans owned ten estates, thus, calling
them the largest landlords in the region, followed by the Augustinians with seven, the
Order of St. John with the large Hacienda Buenavista in Bulacan and the Recollects,
owners of two valuable and intensively cultivated estates in Cavite. The archdiocese of
Manila owned the remaining estate - the Hacienda of Dinalupihan in Bataan Province.
The haciendas ranged in size from the Augustinians' mini estate of Binagliag (294
hectares) in Angat, Bulacan. There, hacienda boundaries conformed very closely to the
municipal boundaries, which had been established as administrative and pastoral units.
The close correspondence of town and hacienda seemed to lie in the fact that in Cavite
and Laguna all of the haciendas formed a compact and contiguous group. From
Muntinlupa in the north and Calamba in the south, Laguna de Bay in the east and Naic
in the west, there stretched an unbroken expanse of friar lands (Roth, 1982). Hacienda
towns in the Philippines during the 19th century were arranged in the following: they had
a municipal center (municipio) with a centrally located plaza where the parish church, a
government building, and perhaps a jail usually would be found. The residence of the
friar administrators (the casa hacienda) and a granary were the only visible evidences
marking the presence of a friar estate. The municipio was the home for the wealthier
citizens of the town — the traders, artisans, and tenants who leased but did not actually
till the land. Outside the municipio were the barrios where the peasants lived near the
fields they cultivated as sharecroppers and agricultural laborers.

ORIGIN OF THE ESTATES

The historical beginnings of these estates were traced to the land grants which
were made to the early Spanish conquistadores. During the late 16th and early 17th
centuries, approximately 120 Spaniards received grants within a 100-kilometers radius
of Manila. This land grant consisted ofa large unit of land known as a sitio degagado
mayor (equivalent to 1,742 hectares) and several smaller units called caballerias (42.5
hectares) while the larger grants measured two or three sitios and may have included a
sitio de gagado menor (774 hectares). The Spanish hacienderos were quick to show
their unwillingness and inability to exploit their lands. By 1612 the original land grants
were consolidated into 34 estancias (ranches). The Spanish landowners sold their lands
to some other Spaniards who in turn mortgaged or donated their estates to the religious
orders. Spanish success in owning lands in other parts of the empire poses the question
of their failure in the Philippines. The religious orders acquired their estates in a variety
of ways. Several of the largest haciendas were donated to the orders by Spaniards
seeking spiritual benefit while some lands were purchased directly from their Spanish
owners. Filipino donors and sellers also contributed directly to the formation of the
religious estates, though to a lesser extent than the Spaniards. Former Filipino chiefs
and headmen were invariably the ones who sold or donated the land. Collectively
known as principales by the Spaniards, they were converted into village and town by
officials of the colonial government.

EARLY PERIOD OF SPANISH COLONIZATION

The Spaniards brought with them to the Philippines their ideas of landownership
and their experiences from the New world where they met people of different cultural
orientation and confronted new ecological and economic conditions. Thus the late 16th
and early 17th centuries was a time of experimentatiori on the estates. Most of the
estates catered is cattle ranching overshadowing rice, sugar, and tropical fruits. The
economically sophisticated Jesuits devoted more of their lands to sugar although their
operations were small compared to the sugar culture,
The transfer of estates from unsuccessful Spanish landowners to the monastic
orders was accomplished with relative ease. Their transformation into profitable
enterprises was more difficult, however. To make them productive, the religious orders
invested thousands of pesos in the improvement of their estates. Dams and irrigation
works were built on a large scale and money was advanced to prospective tenants and
laborers to entice them onto the estates. In addition, they called upon the help of the
colonial government in supplying their labor needs.
The institution of exempted labor largely accomplished its main purpose of
populating the estates and making them dependable suppliers of agricultural products
for the Spaniards in Manila, Bifian, and Santa Rosa. The estates grew and prospered as
a result of the liberal policy of exemption, which the government had adopted for them,
so they quickly became the Dominican's most profitable properties. The exemption,
however, had its negative side, particularly on the side, of the Filipinos. More
exemptions meant that more Filipinos were siphoned off from the non hacienda villages,
which then had to fill their labor quotas from diminishing population bases.
Consequently, the burden of forced labor grew increasingly heavy on the Filipinos living
outside the estates. But because of the inadequacy of government supervision, many
hacienderos exceeded their quotas of exemption. Thus, the 17th and 18th centuries
were filled with complaints and petitions from Filipinos outside the haciendas who felt
they were being discriminated against and who wanted relief from excessive labor
obligations. When the agrarian revolt of 1745 broke out, one of the grievances of the
rebels was the institution of exempted labor and the abuses that resulted from it.
In 1745, five provinces near Manila erupted in an agrarian revolt, which directly
expressed Filipino anger with the estates. The basic issues in the revolt were land
usurpation by the haciendas and the closing of the haciendas' land to common use for
pasturage and forage. The flashpoint ofthe rebellion was a dispute between the
Hacienda ofBifian and the neighboring town of Silang, Cavite. It was in 1740 that the
Dominicans began formal proceedings to gain control of the land. Three years later a
fraudulent survey was conducted, which included the disputed land within the
boundaries of the hacienda. The results of the survey were then hastily ratified by the
Royal Audencia which had failed to adequately evaluate the facts of the case and
overlooked the grossly incorrect units ofareal measure used by the surveyors. The
errors, which permeated all aspects of the decision, gave the citizens of Silang ample
reason to believe that money rather than justice had been the arbiter. Thus, the
Dominicans took possession of the land in early 1745 and began to expel the people of
Silang and replace them with tenants in Bifian. It also happened to nearby estates, like
the town of San Mateo in Tondo and a contiguous Augustinian hacienda, and the
Recollects requested that the survey be made of their hacienda in Imus. The revolt of
1745 by a few years became a turning point in the socio-economic history of the friar
estates. The Filipinos who reacted against the estates and the system of exemption
underscored excesses, which became part of the hacienderos' search for land and
labor. On the other hand, the attempt to close the haciendas' commons showed that
new ideas of landownership were in the air and foreshadowed the economic forces.

MUTINY AND EXECUTION

The futile insurrection had been followed by terrible reprisals and a hardening
everywhere of the articulated tyranny, terrorism, and espionage with which the Spanish
government ruled in the 16th and 19th century. Such from the beginning had been its
practice in the long and uninspiring record of the Spanish occupation in the Philippines:
sore oppression leading to the inevitable revolt and then savage vengeance. With the
rest of these victims of insensate rage, marched on the morning of February 28, 1872,
three beloved priests and servants of God, whowere put to death by the Spanish
authorities (Schumacher, 1972). Their death marked a turning point in the history of
Filipino nationalism, a catalyst that brought together the liberal reformist elements in
Philippine society with the growing self-awareness of a people into a movement that
before long would be directed at independent nationhood. Jose Rizal himself looked
back to that date, as decisive in his own development as a nationalist, in a letter to his
fellow Filipinos in Barcelona in 1889: To quote: "Without 1872 there would not now be a
Plaridel, a Jaena, a Sanciano, nor would the brave and generous Filipino colonies exist
in Europe. Without 1872, Rizal would now be a Jesuit and instead of writing the Noli me
Tangere, would have written the contrary. At the sight ofthose injustices and cruelties,
though still a child, my imagination awoke, and I swore to dedicate myself to avenge
one day so many victims. With this idea, I have gone on studying, and this can be read
in all my works and writings. God will grant me one day to fulfill my promise.
Their death witnessed the long struggle of the Filipino priests in the aspect Of
religion. Although the struggle for the rights of the Filipino clergy suffered an eclipse with
the death of the three priests, the concern of Burgos for the equality of Filipinos with
Spaniards and for justice to all remained at the core of the nationalist aspirations and
representations.
 These ideals and aspirations had taken root in the course of the dispute over the
rights of Filipino secular priests to the parishes, an intra-church dispute. Yet, even
though the movement was increasingly nationalist by the 1870s, the campaign was still
carried on within the framework of the long-standing dispute in the Philippine church
between regular and secular clergy.
So how did the controversy start? The roots of controversy went far back in the
history of the church in the Philippines, even to its foundation and fundamental
structure. They are to be found particularly in three elements in that history — the
structure of the patronato real, the visitation controversy, and the late and erratic
development of a native clergy. With the grant of the patronato real, the Spanish crown
received the most complete control over the church in the Indies, including the
Philippines, in exchange for its commitment to financially support the missionary
enterprise. Their influence increases at the passing of time: the clergy came
increasingly to be considered as employees of the state, and religion as a means of
government. With the dissolution of the religious orders in the peninsula in 18365 and
the confiscation of much of church property, the continued existence of the religious
orders in the Philippines was totally dependent on their political usefulness to a
government that had little faith in their religious mission. The age-old visitation
controversy was the second element at the root of the movement of the secularization
of the parishes. It was a struggle of the religious orders or regular clergy to maintain the
corporate freedom of action and unity against the desire of the bishops to exercise the
authority of their office in the governance of their diocese. With the establishment of a
hierarchy, almost every new bishop attempted to exercise the right and duty of his office
to conduct visitation of inspection in the parishes of his diocese. The religious, anxious
to preserve their corporate structure and their subordination to their own superiors,
resisted such visitation, basing themselves on their papal privileges. When pushed to
the wall, they responded by threatening to abandon all the parishes, a threat more than
once temporarily carried out (Schumacher, 1972).
The long failure of the bishops to enforce their rights to visitation was closely
linked to the third factor, the failure of the Spanish missionaries to encourage the
development of a native Filipino clergy. Accounts were made that there were no native
Filipino, or indio, priests ordained before 1698. The only first serious efforts in the
direction of the Filipino clergy were taken at the end of the 17th century.
The resistance of the native Filipino priests was under the leadership of Fr. Pedro
Pelaez, seconded by Fr. Mariano Gomez. With the tragic death of the former, the latter
was being passed on the leadership until his execution in 1872 signaled the failure of
the Filipino priests to obtain their rights. In the process of resistance, however, the
ecclesiastical dispute was to become an overtly nationalist question, as the Filipino
clergy replied to racial discrimination with a firm and ringing assertion of their equality as
priests in the one Catholic Church (Schumacher, 1972).
During the term of Governor-General Carlos Maria Dela Torre (1869-1821), he
showed that he was democratic in his sympathies and quickly named a series of reform
committees for every aspect of government in the Philippines. However, documents
proved that he was suspicious of the Filipino liberals, particularly of the Filipino clergy
and of their intention. Within months after his arrival, numerous Filipinos accused of
anti-Spanish sentiments were placed under surveillance, and their mails subjected to
government inspection. Though he remained intent on reforms within the government,
De la Torre did not intend to allow any liberalization, which might endanger Spanish rule
in the Philippines. One prominent example was when a group of university students
under the leadership of Felipe Buencamino began to agitate against the university
administration and circulate anonymous leaflets calling for changes in the system. Not
long after Buencamino found himself in prison, from which he emerged four months
later. Meanwhile, Fr. Burgos challenged openly the religious sector by writing articles in
the Madrid newspaper La Discusion. La Discusion was a frankly republican and
anticlerical newspaper, and appeard to have been the vehicle for a series of attacks on
the continued existence of the friars in the Philippines. In retaliation,
Fr. Joaquin de Coria, procurator in Madrid of the Philippine Franciscans,
published a series of articles in defense of the work of the friars evidently making use of
odious comparisons at the expense of the Filipino clergy to extol the works of the friars.
Because of opening his identity in criticizing the friars and defending the clergy,
Fr. Burgos temporarily ruptured his friendship with the Jesuits. Fr. Pedro Bertran,
the Jesuit superior, upbraided him for bringing ecclesiastical questions into the public
press, above all in anticlerical publications, such as La Discusion. The anticlerical
activities of the Filipino clergy were supported by the Filipino liberals in Madrid. They
had their own press organ in Madrid to defend their interests and promote their
aspirations. The chief contact, at least of the priests, was Manuel Regidor, a colleague
of the republican politician Rafael M. Labra, who was publishing the newspaper El
Correo. At about the same time, a newspaper devoted totally to the Philippines, El Eco
Filipino, begun to be published in Madrid by Fr. Federico Lerena, a peninsular who was
brother-inlaw to Jose Ma. Basa. It survived until the time of the Cavite Mutiny.
Meanwhile, the policy of vigilance and suspicion on the part of De La Torre was
replaced by one of the active repressions. With the change of government in Spain, a
new governor-general, Rafael de Izquerdo (18-71-1873), had been sent to replace De la
Torre. His ideas on the governance of a colony were in no way influenced by liberalism;
thus' the tentative liberalization was quickly abolished. It was in this atmosphere that the
outbreak of January 20, 1872 took place in the arsenal of Cavite. Its exact nature and
the extent to which it was instigated and supported from sources outside the workers
and troops who took part in it are still hidden from us and must probably remain so until
the proceedings of the courts martial become available. According to the Official version
that survives, the revolt on the part of the garrison which took place was only part of a
much larger revolt, carried out not only by the army but also by the naval forces directed
from Manila with accomplices in the provinces as well. The purpose was to put to death
all Spaniards and to proclaim a provisional government under Fr. Burgos, to prepare the
way for a more permanent government. The principal organizers in Cavite itself were
sergeant Lamadrid and Francisco Zaldua (executed together with GOMBURZA) who
were in contact with the junta headed by Burgos' Pardo de Tavera, Regidor, and some
other lawyers and priests (Schumacher, 1972).