[The following extract forms the second part of a treatise found
in the body of _Ordinances enacted by the Audiencia of Manila_,
given in _Vols_. X and XI. The first part is entitled "Relation of
the customs which the Indians were accustomed to observe in these
islands; written by Fray Joan de Plaçençia, and sent to Doctor Stiago
de Vera, former president of the royal Audiencia which resided in
these islands." This is signed with Plasencia's name. The second
part, headed as below, bears no signature, but is doubtless by
Plasencia. From their appearance in the body of the above document,
it is probable that the Audiencia considered them in assembly. Both
these reports were written by Plasencia at the command of the governor
or of the Audiencia, in order that the local Spanish magistrates
might be guided by the customs of the natives in deciding matters
of law or justice among the Indians. The first part, omitted here,
is the same, with a few verbal changes, as the relation published in
_Vol_. VII. pp. 173-185; but it is dated, "Narcan, October twenty-four,
one thousand five hundred and eighty-nine" (but this may have been
an error of the clerk of the Audiencia). The second part (_Vol_. VII,
pp. 185-196) is not found in the above Audiencia document.]
Instructions regarding the customs which the natives of Pampanga
formerly observed in their lawsuits
They never had anyone whom they all generally obeyed, except that
only in each barangay they obeyed their chief, whose people are
called timaguas. Among the chiefs, lords of barangay, he who was most
powerful tyrannized over the others, even though they were brothers,
because they were all intent upon their own interests.
2. In what concerns regulation in regard to supplies for the country,
they had none, and everyone bought and sold as he could; beyond that
each chief who ruled a barangay ordered his people to sow at the
proper time, and made them assist him at seed-time and harvest.
3. The timaguas, or common people, came before their chief with their
suits, and he settled them in this way. Whatever petition was made
before them, the chief summoned the party on whom the demand was made,
and asked him if he would come to an agreement with the other and
opposite party. If the two parties made such agreement, there was no
suit. If they would not agree, he exacted an oath from them that they
would submit to his judgment. Then he immediately asked for a _viva
voce_ examination of both, because among these people there were no
writings any suits. If both parties gave like testimony, with the
same number of witnesses, they split the difference of the amount of
the suit. If the number of witnesses was not equal on either side,
such and such a one was condemned to the whole amount, or released
from the claim. If the defeated party would not pay according to the
sentence, the other party and the judge proceeded against him with
the armed hand, and forced him to comply with it. The witnesses were
paid according to their rank, and the judge also. The payment of
the judge and witnesses was so excessive, that they shared equally
with him who won in the suit. The witnesses of the condemned party
were paid nothing; and if anything had been given to them before the
decision of the suit, it was taken back from them.
4. _Item_: In regard to any murders that occurred, they ruled in this
wise. If one chief killed another chief, the relatives and friends
of the murdered man went to war immediately with the murderer and his
kindred; and if they killed the murderer, the quarrel and difference
between them was ended. If not, they killed as many as possible of his
followers. After these parties had grown weary of their strife, and
a certain time had elapsed after the murder, the other chiefs of the
village or district endeavored to reconcile them. The reconciliation
was as follows. The murderer was to give and pay to the relatives
of the murdered man seventy or eighty taes of gold; and if he were a
prominent chief, one hundred or more. Then they all remained friends,
and one half was divided among the children of the murdered man,
if he had any, or his parents, brothers, or kindred; and the other
half among those chiefs who reconciled them, and the timaguas of the
murdered man's barangay, although the chiefs took the greater part. If
the children or relatives of the deceased refused to be reconciled,
all the chiefs proceeded against them, and assisted the party of the
murderer until the said agreement was completed.
5. In case any timagua killed any chief or his child, the relatives
of the deceased put the murderer to death, together with his wife
and children, if they succeeded in catching him. They seized all his
property, which they divided among the children of the murdered man,
if he had any, and if not, among his parents, relatives, or brothers;
and if he had no kindred, among those who executed the vengeance for
the murder, this usually being his successor in the barangay.
6. If the murdered man was a timagua, and the murderer a chief, the
latter gave to the children or heirs of the murdered man the sum of
ten to twenty taes of gold; but if the murdered man had no heirs,
it was divided between the judge passing sentence--who was one of the
chiefs, appointed by the others of the village for the purpose--and
among the said chiefs, the judge taking one half and the others the
other half. Of this they gave no part to the murderer, even though
he was a chief.
7. _Item_: If one timagua killed another timagua, and had nothing
with which to pay the penalty--ten to twenty taes of gold--all the
chiefs of the village killed him for it, if his own chief did not do
this, by hanging him to a tree or _arigue_ [_i.e._, prop of a house]
or piercing him with many lance-thrusts.
8. If any woman killed any man, or another woman, by poison or steel
or any other way, the judgment was in conformity with the one above,
with consideration for the said conditions.
9. If a brother killed a brother or an uncle, or a nephew his uncle,
he did not die for it; but they took all his property away from him
for the heirs of the murdered man, of which they gave no share to the
murderer, even though he should be an heir. This was determined by the
chief of the barangay to which the murderer and the murdered belonged,
if each party were of his barangay. The chiefs of the barangay were
judges, and shared with the heirs of the deceased.
10. Concerning the murder of a child by a father, or a father by
a child, no precise information could be secured regarding the
punishment, because all asserted that they never remembered such a
murder to have happened.
11. In case of the burning of any village or crops, if the incendiary
was a chief, he paid for all the damage caused by the fire--which the
chiefs of such town and those nearest it determined--according to
the amount of the damage, even though they did not leave the chief
who set the fire one mais of gold. If the damage did not exceed his
property, and he had some property left over, he retained it. If
the incendiary were a timagua, he was executed, and his goods were
seized to repair the damage. If these did not suffice to pay for it,
they sold his wife and children as slaves, to pay for the said damage.
12. Concerning thieves: If the thief were a chief, he returned the
plunder, and was fined in proportion to the theft, according to the
opinion of one of the chiefs of the village, whom the other chiefs
selected as judge for that purpose. They say that they ordinarily
appointed the oldest and the most intelligent. The latter could
moderate the penalty, which was divided between the judge and the
other chiefs, the judge taking one half.
13. If a timagua or slave committed a theft: If the thief were
a timagua, they compelled him to return his booty, and fined him
according to the regulations of the preceding section. If he had
nothing with which to pay, they sold him in another village, in order
to pay what he owed, as a penalty for the theft. If the thief were a
slave, his master paid for him, or delivered the said slave to the
party, and he was soundly lashed. If the owner of the said stolen
goods caught the thief in the act of such robbery, he could kill or
beat him without any penalty.
14. As for the old men, old women, and witches who committed murders
by any of their practices, when it was ascertained that they had
killed any person with their witchcraft or tricks, the chief of their
barangay, or of the barangay of the murdered man, could kill them with
daggers if he pleased; and if these chiefs did not do this, any of the
other chiefs could kill the criminals. Their property was seized, and
one half was given to the relatives of the murdered man, and the other
half to him who executed the sentence upon such sorcerers and witches.
15. Insulting words caused great anger among these natives, and it
was considered a very grave offense, especially among the chiefs. They
fined the culprits in heavy sums therefor, inflicting this penalty in
order not to cause murders, and in the following manner. The insulted
person and he who insulted him named a chief, who must be greater
than those in the whole province, to hear this suit, who accepted
and decided it. If either of the two parties refused to conform to
the agreement which the judge prescribed, there was a custom among
them that each one lavished expense, on his own account, on feasts
and assemblies, and he who spent the greater sum they considered the
more powerful and honorable. From these debaucheries and gatherings
sometimes resulted wars between them. If either one of the two was
the most considerable chief of the province, three or four, chosen by
the rest, judged the case. In case the injurious words were said by a
timagua to a chief, if the said timagua had nothing wherewith to pay
the penalty imposed--which was very excessive--he was made a slave;
and if the insulted party were a great chief, the timagua's wife and
children were made slaves. If the chief applied insulting words to
any timagua, the penalty was very light, and many times nothing.
16. Their marriage custom was to have one wife--from whom they would
separate and marry another, on any occasion or change of feeling--and
to have three or four other women. They always considered that one the
legitimate wife with whom they naturally cohabited. The man always
gave the dowry, and this, together with certain gatherings in which
they drank, was considered marriage. If the man separated from his
wife, he lost the dowry which he had given her. If she separated
from the man, she returned double the dowry which she had received,
even though she had children. The property acquired during marriage,
they always divided equally. They never disinherited the children
in life or death, even though they were born of many women, if they
had been married to these. The other children, born of other women,
whom we call bastards, they called _asiao yndepat_. These did not
inherit, but they always gave them something. Even if any one had no
legitimate child at his death, the bastard could not inherit at all,
but the property went to the nearest relatives of the deceased.
17. They were not accustomed to will more to any child, except in small
sums, as three or four taes, or small pieces of land of the like value.
18. When anyone became a widower and no children had been born to the
husband and wife, the whole dowry was returned. But if any sons or
daughters had been born to them, even though these were dead at the
time of bereavement, not more than half the dowry was returned.
19. If any child were living at the time of the death of the father
or mother, all the property of the deceased was inherited by the
child or children. If they were not old enough to administer it,
the parents of the deceased kept and used it, and not the surviving
father or mother of the minors. If the minor died afterward, neither
the father nor the mother inherited it, but the minor's grandparents,
or the nearest relatives of the deceased from whom the minor had
inherited the property.
20. Among the slaves, the father and mother shared equally. If both
were slaves of one master, the children were so also. If one slave
belonged to one master and the other to another, the children were
divided in this way. The master of the father took the eldest, the
master of the mother, the second; and so on in this order with the
rest. If there were an odd one, the two masters of the parents divided
him; that is, the slave served both masters equally. If either the
father or mother were free, the children were divided in the same way,
so that if the father was free, the eldest son or daughter was free. On
the contrary, if the father was a slave, the eldest son or daughter was
a slave. This arrangement was kept and observed among them, namely,
to give an equal share to both the father and mother. If one of them
was free or half-free, they gave his part to him and to his children
in proportion to the amount which fell to his lot.
21. If any chiefs wrangled over their cultivated lands, they came
before the other chiefs of the village; and these tried them, and
received testimony orally from both sides, under oath, according to
their usage--which was sweating by the crocodile, the sun, the moon,
and many other things by which they swore. In conformity with the
evidence of each one, the suit between the said chiefs was decided;
and if either one of them refused to comply with the sentence, all the
chiefs together compelled him to observe it. This order was adhered
to in this matter.
22. All the aforesaid information I have endeavored to procure from
the oldest inhabitants of this province, and from all the priors of
the province. If it be not set forth in a style as good as I ought
to use, I beg your Lordship to pardon its defects, for the sake of
my good will, etc.