Franciscan Sources and What They Tell Us about
Highland Missions in the Philippines under Spanish Rule
This essay provides an overview of major themes suggested or described in Franciscan manuscripts on their mission work in the Philippines from the late sixteenth century to the end of Spanish rule in 1898.[1] The Franciscan missions were in four regions:
1. Nueva Ecija (Pantabangan, Carranglan, and Pungcan)
2. Tanay area (Rizal Province today)
3. The Baler/Palanan area (Aurora Province today)
4. Bikol, particularly in and around Mount Isarog
The plan for this essay is to provide an overview and careful look at the mission work in
each of these four regions. The bulk of the essay will be on the themes the manuscript materials present concerning Filipinos[2] living or near these mission stations.[3] After a short conclusion I provide a short bibliography of selected, published materials, followed by a set of appendices with more specialized material not used directly in the text of the essay.
Overview: Pantabangan, Carranglan, and Pungcan
For this group of three missions in Nueva Ecija we are fortunate to have a lengthy manuscript from 1785 with useful information regarding them.[4] Carranglan is described as a settlement with a “length of three Castilian leguas[5] and a width of seven.” The manuscript continues by saying that this mission has good pastures, many flat areas with good fertility, “not a few mountains,” a cool climate, a large river with some little streams for irrigation, all of which made a location capable of supporting up to fifteen hundred farmers (Pérez Cobos Manifiesto, 1785, 5). Pungcan was less linear, ten by nine Castilian leguas in size, again with mountains, pastures, and flat lands, along with a large river with tributaries for irrigation; all sufficient for up to six hundred farmers and a prosperous life (Pérez Cobos Manifiesto, 1785, 4). IPungcan burned down in 1782 (Pérez Cobos Manifiesto, 1785, 16) but was rebuilt. While Pantabangan is not described by Pérez de los Cobos, we do have a 1792 description from a member of the Malaspina expedition.[6] Pantabangan, according to this eighteenth century manuscript, had 70 to 100 houses with some 70 families paying tribute[7] to the King. Those residing there came from various provinces, including Pangasinan, Pampanga, and included as well highlanders he called “Ylongotes” (f. 397). He said that there were about 40 Ylongotes in Pantabangan. To walk from Pantabangan to Carranglan would ordinarily take about three and one-half hours (f. 398).
Pérez de los Cobos says that in the early 1780s the population of these three missions was the following:
Individuals (almas under the bell) tributos enteros
Pungcan (4-5) 350 56
Carranglan (5-6) 434 33
Pantabangan (6-7) 313 0[8]
A Franciscan writing about eighty years later also described these missions, along with some historical background.[9] All three missions were initially established by the Augustinians in 1701. On the 1st of September 1759, the missions were transferred to the Franciscans.[10] Huerta (1865) says that all three produced good quantities of a diversity of crops and had good areas for pastureland. All three missions appear to have been without a Franciscan priest in the 1820s and 1850s; and Pungcan was almost always served by the priest in Carranglan from the 1860s to the end of Spanish rule in the Islands.
Overview: Franciscans Missions in the Tanay Region[11]
Franciscans were active in and around Tanay (Rizal Province), especially in the
seventeenth century. Due to a shortage of Franciscan priests in the early eighteenth century,
many of these missions were passed on to the Jesuits. Information from this short period of
Franciscan stewardship is scant. The earliest mission mentioned is San Pablo [de los Montes]
(Huerta, 1865, 572), which was founded in 1586 but ceded along with the pueblo of Antipolo to
the Jesuits in 1591.[12]
Further information on missions in this area comes from an article by a Franciscan
scholar in 1964, who used Huerta and other Franciscan sources to summarize the Franciscan
mission efforts in this region. His summary tells us the dates of establishment for the missions of
San Antonio (in 1606), San Andrés de Lanating (1645), and San Pedro y San Pablo (1668). P.
Fr. Francisco de Barajas was quite active in 1670, “making a bold trip throughout the cordillera,”
establishing the mission of Limotan in that same year. (Also see Appendix B, below, for a
summary of a report by Father Francisco) According to Huerta (1865, 573) Limotan was
abandoned by its highlander residents in 1700. Daraetan was also founded in 1670 (Huerta,
1865, 576), but often the position of priest there was not filled or the clerical post fell under the
jurisdiction of other settlements. The mission disappears from Franciscan listings after 1855.
Huerta (1865, 572) adds the information that the pueblo of Tanay was moved to the site of the mission of San Antonio in 1620, but returned to its old site in 1640, leaving behind “some ten families.” In 1645 a Franciscan was able to get a church constructed at the mission of San Antonio and it continued under Franciscan stewardship until 1703, when it was transferred to the Jesuits. San Andrés or San Andrés de Lanating also received a church, this time in 1670; but it too passed to the Jesuits in 1703 (572-573). Also in 1703, the work at the Mission of San Pedro and San Pablo was given to the Jesuits (573).
There was another surge of Franciscan missionary effort in the 1740s, resulting at this
time in the founding of Calumpan and trips to a myriad of small settlements (Huerta, 1865, 576-577). Calumpan was served by the priest stationed at Daraetan. By 1763 there were 326 Christianized and registered residents in Calumpan’s mission area, but only 119 in the mission proper.[13] The Calumpan mission was moved and subordinated to Siniloan in 1810 and was no longer a separate entity or mission in itself. Indeed, according to Father Antolín Abad Pérez, by 1810 all of these missions and settlements had been joined to the pueblos of Tanay, Santa María de Caboan, and Siniloan.[14]
It is apparent that Franciscan mission work with these seven missions was not impressive in time or durability of the missions that were established. One mission (San Pablo de los Montes) was in the care of the Franciscans only from 1586 to 1591. Five of the remaining
six missions were founded in the seventeenth century, with one deserted by its residents in 1700
and three of the remaining four transferred to the Jesuits in 1703. Only Daraetan continued into
the nineteenth century but often with no resident priest. Calumpan was founded in the eighteenth
century but by 1810 was no longer an independent entity.
Materials on these seven missions, not surprisingly, is rather sparse and I will speak a bit
further about only two of them. A description for Calumpan for 1754 speaks to the missionary
challenge:[15]
… the area is large, those hidden are many, mountains with pagans are
numerous, the population is dispersed, and one cannot gain much in a year.
Little by little, though, with lots of work, many hardships, much danger at
no little cost [one sees some progress]… Unless the priest is very robust
both in body and in spirit, the situation will remain as it is now.
Ten years later a Spanish governor referred to Calumpan as a “cave of thieves” and said that
there had been a destructive fire there on 3 May 1764.[16]
Daraetan has a scattering of reports, often rather brief, but with the advantage of being
from a variety of years from 1712 on and off to the early nineteenth century. The 1712
manuscript refers to missionary work by a Franciscan working out of Caboan who was
catechizing and baptizing individuals in the hills nearby. In the manuscript the Franciscan
refers to a previous trip and a settlement with twelve houses, probably at Daraetan.[17] The
mission burned down in 1764 but was rebuilt—perhaps because it was considered a strategic
point from which to work to congregate highlanders in the nearby mountain.[18] By
1783, the Franciscans were trying to move the site of the mission closer to the bulk of the
“Yndios Cimarrones” and to improve accessibility during the rainy season.[19] While this plan
was not approved by the government, by 1803 efforts were afoot to move the mission location
towards Caboan to a site with a river and irrigation possibilities and a larger area for
cultivation.[20] We do not know if this or any other move occurred. By 1810, Daraetan was
officially named a subordinate settlement to Caboan (Huerta, 1865, 576). It appeared as vacant
from 1814 through 1855 in the Capitulo or Chapter lists. By the late 1850s it was no longer
listed in those assignment rosters.
Overview: The Baler and Palanan Areas
The number of missions in this area, just west of the Pacific Ocean, is large, twenty.[21] I found it useful to add the municipalities of Baler and Palanan as well given the activity in mission work by priests stationed in those two pueblos. Just as the number of sites to examine is large, the variety of groups among the highlanders is notable. So too are the complexity of detail and data we find in the AFIO materials. Where possible I have moved data and thematic sections to later parts of this essay, leaving the more manageable and necessary survey material here, with particular attention to general observations by Franciscans regarding Baler, Palanan, and the missions.
In addition to the number of missions we must acknowledge the relatively short existence of most of them, due both to Filipino flight and shortage of Franciscan priests. A simple table, from data in Huerta (1865), illustrates this and in the process enables us to focus on the longer-lasting missions, which not surprisingly also have the larger amount of source materials.
Name Date Established Date Abandoned Why Abandoned
Alevec
1754
1775
Deserted by its inhabitants, “as in Tabueyon, due to punishment since they were loath to leave off from their mortal propensity to cut off heads” (Huerta, 1865, 567-568)[22]
Binatangan
1756
1817
Flight due to smallpox epidemic[23]
Bonabue
1755
1789
Neglected due to lack of Franciscans—in fact abandoned ca. 1775
Bongog
1718
Lost at unspecified time (“destroyed” Huerta, 1865, 564)
Unclear (“y no consta cuando, ni el motive de haberse destruido.” (564))
Name
Date Established
Date Abandoned
Why Abandoned
Casignan
1753
No priest of own or vacant, 1801+
Casiguran
1609[24]
1658, ceded to ORSA due to shortage of OFM; returned to OFM 1703
Catalangan
1752
1829
Shortage of priests (Huerta, 1865, 571)
Comblan
1721
Unspecified
Shortage of Franciscan priests, given up some time after 1745
Debimbinan
1718
1730
Site moved to Divilican
Dibutarec
1731
Early 1800s
Franciscan shortage of priests
Dipaculao
1719[25]
Vacant from 1810-1837, from 1852-1864, and from 1877-1888
Divilican
1723[26]
Abandoned ca. 1800
Shortage of Franciscans
Etmolen
1755 [Dec. 1754= first Franciscan assigned]
1789 (effectively from the 1770s)
Shortage of Franciscans
Lauang
1718
1749
No reason given (Huerta, 1865, 564-565)
Malandez
1740
1778
No reason given (Huerta, 1865, 566); no listing in the Capítulo assignments
San Ildefonso
1714
No data given after 1745 (Huerta, 1865, 565)
Shortage of Franciscans
San Juan Bautista, Montes de Casiguran
ca. 1745, no Franciscan priest listed 1769+
Disappears from Capítulo lists after 1787
No Huerta (1865) entry
Tabueyon
1754
1775
Flight—feared punishment for the beheading of a Franciscan in 1770.[27]
Tambaguen
1719
[1749—but see the text below to ca. 1753 references]
Along with Lauang, no reason given (Huerta, 1865, 565)
Umirey
1721
No date given; no Capítulo listings
Shortage of Franciscans (Huerta, 1865, 577)
Name Date Established Date Abandoned Why Abandoned
We see from this table that there were two major missionary efforts by the Franciscans, one in the early eighteenth century (Bongog, Comblan, Debimbinan, Dipaculao, Divilican, Lauang, San Ildefonso, Tambaguen, and Umirey) and the other in the 1750s (Alevec, Binatangan, Bonabue, Casignan, Catalangan, Etmolen, and Tabueyan). Judging by assignments, Casiguran should fall in the first group; and Dibutarec and Malandez as well as San Juan Bautista anticipate the second grouping, appearing in the 1730s and 1740s, respectively. Filipino flight was given as the reason for the loss of the missions of Alevec, Binatangan, and Tabueyon. Franciscan personnel shortages or unspecified reasons led to loss, transfer, or abandonment of the missions of Bonabue, Bongog, Casignan, Casiguran (returned to the Franciscans in 1703), Catalangan, Comblan, Debinbinan, Dibutarec, Divilican, Etmolen, Lauang, Malandez, San Ildefonso, San Juan Bautista, Tambaguen, and Umirey. The two missions from our original list of twenty still in operation and staffed by the Franciscans in the last 100 years of the Spanish colonial regime were Casiguran and Dipaculao—and Dipaculao was barely staffed. In terms of enduring existence of their mission work, it appears the Franciscan efforts in this area were none too successful. The documentary record somewhat reflects this dramatic reduction in the number of enduring mission sites in this area. There is actually more mission information for Baler and for Palanan than for any specific mission, aside of course from data on population and the administration of the sacraments.
A source from 1721 speaks directly to the difficulties of staffing in areas of arduous travel, with the priest even suggesting that Palanan and Debimbinan be transferred to the Dominicans in Cagayan since highlanders from those missions tended to go there anyway to pay their tribute. Both Palanan and Debimbinan had attracted highlanders under the Recollects. The Franciscan directly links the presence of the priest to the attractiveness of the sites for attracting highlanders to settle there. With Franciscan staffing difficulties, missionary priests had been there only occasionally. Palanan, which had up to 500 tribute payers under the Recollects, was down to about 100 the last time the writer had visited it. He was able to get the number up to 257 by the time he moved on, but with his current illness and the hardships of distance and travel he does not know when or if he will be able to return. He has since learned that since departing from Palanan and from Debimbinan seven months earlier, eleven adults had died in those two places, without the last sacraments since there was no priest present.[28] As we saw with the large number of mission sites abandoned or consolidated by the Franciscans due to shortage of personnel resources, efforts in the highlands were largely unsuccessful (from the Franciscan point of view). In addition, they were a drain on resources and took a priest away from the somewhat more compactly settled lowlands and the work there.
Most Franciscans seemed to believe that it was only the sustained presence of a priest that could maintain congregated settlements (and of course maintain access to the Christian sacraments and fidelity to Spanish colonial expectations). It is probable that dispersion increased without a priest to provide the spiritual or material or ritualistic benefits or goods that highlanders might have prized, but it seems also true that if a settlement were seen as attractive in its own right it would be occupied with or without a resident priest. The determinant factors would be highlander priorities, not necessarily the motivations assumed by the priest. For instance, in 1718 P. Fr. Vicente Ingles wrote a letter about his trip to the Baler/Palanan region in general and to Casiguran in particular.[29] On his way to Casiguran he detoured to visit a “pueblo” of “Ylongotes,” ostensibly a “visita” of Casiguran’s but which had not seen a priest in fourteen years. He also stopped at two other “pueblos,” neither of which again had seen a priest in fourteen years. He was greeted warmly. Many of the older people had been baptized in the past, and he used the letter to discuss the need for more missionary priests for the work remaining to be done in this region. What is important for this section of the essay is that all three of these settlements had persisted and apparently prospered or at least maintained themselves during those fourteen years without even a visit from a priest. That he used the term pueblo, which had significance for Spaniards in terms of size, durability, and administration (see Appendix D, below), suggests these were large and nucleated settlements. The Franciscans saw their presence as essential for spiritual as well as for congregation and administrative work, but it is clear that highlanders (and lowlanders) established settlements too, and maintained them without priest or other Spanish presence.
We saw earlier that the Franciscans made another major missionary outreach effort in the 1750s and we have a report from that initiative from 1753:[30]
…the missionary priest in Baler has notified me that he has discovered
inland from that mission some thirty-two groups of a very docile people. He is
confident that they can easily be congregated within our Holy Faith. Already in
this year of 1753, he has baptized about seventy, of which sixty were more than
fifteen years of age when baptized. … the number of almas in that sitio has
increased so much that even ten missionary priests would have enough work
with such an abundant harvest time.
About a year later an internal Franciscan report appeared that was later printed and distributed in Spain.[31] Two Franciscans apparently made a sort of reconnaissance trip to scope out the possibilities for missionary work among the highlanders along the Pacific coast north and inland from Baler. Early on (p. 2) we read that they arrived at the Dipaculao River and encountered about fifty people. Eleven were highlanders and the rest were either from the pueblo or missions “from below.” From here, after some stiff climbing and a day or two, they arrived at Tabueyong, described as a cabecera (p. 3). There is reference on page 6 that “Alebec [sic] is á legua further below said pueblo of Tabueyong.”
Father Manuel noted ([. 7) that Tabueyong was “a new Mission,” one of the “better established” [mas formado] of the “three Rancherias, or Pueblecitos” in that area.[32] It only had “twelve houses built next to each other.” The rest of the people lodge with each other or “live in their fields that all have along the slopes and heights of these mountains,” which they must do since “there is no land below on which to build.” “They grow all kinds of crops but mainly tobacco, which they export by the thousands [of pounds, of bundles?] to Baler for a little cloth and bolos [para tomar su ropilla y machetes] … [p. 8]. They grow only that which is necessary for life. Having no plows, they use only the bolo as a tool, clearing land on the slopes [ellos solo siembran lo preciso para vivir, sin mas arados que el machete, ni mas tierra que las cuestas]….”[33]
In Father Manuel’s second letter, he observes that the “settlements commonly were made up of 24, 30, 40, or more families,” that there were no large pueblos, and that each mission was further divided into Rancherias. In his third letter, he mentioned that since February he and P. Fr. Manuel de San Agustin had been on the mountain of Tabueyong in the pueblos of Deguinan, Cabugo, and Anonoe catechizing and baptizing. He commented that some of those in Tabueyong, “in a little bit more than two months already knew all the prayers, such as the Ave Maria, and half of the catechism. They are so learned and conversant with the questions and responses that those who before had seen such cimarrones were astonished….”
Travel in these areas was difficult. Father Manuel observed that if more missionary priests were sent to work here, “they should be good walkers given that the terrain is very hilly [sean de Buenos pies, porque la tierra es muy montuosa].” The 1751 report by Father Casimiro referred to earlier [Pitarque, Ynforme, 1751] comments on the “two hours of very bad road” from Emotlen to Alevec (209); and that Alevec to Tabueyon would take seven hours (210). In these mountains he observes that “an hour of these roads is worth four” elsewhere (210). Given the difficulties of travel and the fatigue and sickness commonly experienced by missionaries in the highlands, we see in 1792 expectations by the Franciscan Province that missionaries should try to get out to the visitas and rancherias around the mission sites “at least once a month.”[34] As we saw earlier, the abundant hopes for mission work in this region were not realized by the Franciscans.
Finally, there appears to have been another missionizing effort in the early 1800s, but it too was doomed by lack of sufficient missionary priests and untoward events. One of the most notable stories was in regards to the mission of Casignan, which officially was vacant or shared a missionary priest with other settlements from 1801 onwards. According to two manuscripts from 1836, there were compelling reasons to keep Casignan as a mission in its current location rather than moving it to or closer to Baler. Among the reasons for keeping it where it was that it was a good location for communications from Baler to other missions and to rancherías of unconverted highlanders and had sites suitable for productive fields, access to fishing, and potential for a population of 1,000. Admittedly it only had 19 tributos at that time (1836), but in the second decade of the 1800s it was sufficiently populous to call for a Cavezeria de Christianos nacidos alli, or presumably 30-40 families of settled Christians. Unfortunately, though, in 1818 Moros attacked Baler and came upriver, destroyed the mission, and the inhabitants either fled, died, or were abducted.[35]
Overview: Bikol/Mt. Isarog Area[36]
The stories of these ten missions are difficult to ascertain from the Franciscan sources. Data are missing, descriptions are partial, and even Huerta is less precise than usual. Manguirin is reported to have been established in 1701 (Huerta, 1865, 203-204); Ragay (211-212), Salog/Goa (205-206), and Tigaon (204-205) were probably established around 1701 as well. However, there are no Capitulo or Chapter assignment postings for Salog/Goa until 1741 and none for Ragay nor for Tigaon until 1745. Tinambac was established ca. 1781 (Huerta, 1865, 221-222), but Capitulo listings appear only in 1853.[37] Sangay was established ca. 1684 (200-201) and has Chapter assignments for 1690 and 1691; but thereafter it appears again in the Capitulos only from 1853 to 1897. Pili was established ca. 1770 (219), but its Chapter listings only appear from 1819 on. Mabatobato has no date given for establishment and is in the Capitulos from 1853-1897, and then usually “Vacant” or with no Franciscan listed at all. Himoragat only appears in Huerta as the site chosen in 1756 as the new location for Manguirin—and this site was given up in 1762 when Manguirin returned to its previous location (Huerta, 1865, 203-204). Notwithstanding, Himoragat is listed in the Chapter assignments from 1687 to 1708,[38] from 1751 to 1756, and from 1853-1870, often “Vacant” or under the care of the priest of Manguirin or Quipayo.
The Franciscan manuscripts that have survived and are in AFIO have more information of course, but foundation dates and reasonably full descriptions are lacking, to the best of my knowledge. Most of what is extant will be used in the thematic sections, below, but two sets of materials fit well in this overview.
Huerta (1865, 205-206) indicates that the mission of Salog was established by the Franciscans around 1701.[39] It was subordinate to Manguirin until 1729, when Huerta says that P. Fr. Juan Catalá was appointed as Salog’s first resident priest. The mission may have been transferred from the Franciscans to the Secular or diocesan clergy in or around 1812.[40] The mission under Franciscan care appears in the Capítulo assignments under the name of Goa from 1843 to 1898, a point I will return to shortly.
By the 1740s, Salog was fairly well-enough established to have a detachment of soldiers posted there in 1741, and a resident population there or nearby of 491 “souls” (almas).[41] Nonetheless, there are indications that permanent adjustment to mission life was a mixture of adaptation and flexible resident choices for many of the highlanders officially resident in the mission. Mobility is shown by an 1853 manuscript that reveals that of 45 married couples resident there in 1751, nine had moved away by 1753.[42] On the other hand, we get a glimpse in another 1753 manuscript that Filipinos had successfully combined skills, and mission identity: among the residents were some long-time inhabitants, descendants of “Agtas and Cimarrones,” who paid a small tribute (5 reales) to the king and served as escorts and couriers for the priest.[43] Perhaps more telling, though, is the observation in that report that the mission served as a refuge for those who had fled from pueblos and refused to return, no matter how the missionary tried. Some had been in the mission 10, 12, 15, 20, or even 30 years and apparently still officially were considered fugitives from those pueblos, showing both sustained residence in the mission and willingness to flee pueblos. Two seemingly contradictory messages but when one posits the common factor of Filipino decision-making according to their preferences and priorities, the presumed contradiction diminishes.
However, the Salog Mission was going to undergo significant upheaval in the next twenty years, as we see in a summary written in 1775, which also puts the establishment of Goa as the location of the mission over one hundred years earlier than shown in the Franciscan Capitulos:[44]
The Mission of St. Francis of Salog is now in the site called Goa ….
The center and head [cabecera] of this Mission is at the present time Goa of
Salog [Goa de Salog] and its annexes … Lupi, Tinambac, Himaga, [and]
Mataela … This cabecera was founded or congregated on the 21st of January
of 1751. Heretofore the cabecera was [in] the site of Salog whose name is
still conserved in the Goa location … founded … around 1707 … in the
Colassi site … and refounded in 1741 in the Goa location, where it has been
located ever since.
This source also provides (ff. 3v-4) numbers for the population in and around Salog/Goa from 1756 onwards, showing remarkable fluctuations:
1756: 580
1763: 791
1770: 947***
1757: 565
1764: 873
1771: 932
1758: 690
1765: 789
1772: no figures given
1759: 607*&*
1766: 735
1773: 1,096
1760: 351
1767: 812
1774: 1,172
1761: 742
1768: 1,156
1762: 617
1769: 905
*&* includes the newly founded Tinambac’s 112
*** Includes reference to unexplained destruction of two sites: “en este año se
destruyo Mataela y Poro….”
While the population fluctuations are not explained (especially notable are 1760 and 1768) nor the loss of two sitios in 1770, we do have a description of the mission and a perceptive quotation on the worldview of the highlanders (f. 4-4v):
The pueblo [sic—it is of course a mission] … is composed of ninety houses
on three established streets [con tres calles formadas], with a capitán and
officials… The site is flat, about two hours by trail to the sea toward the north.
[This area] could support three, four, or more thousands of tribute payers if the
people were hardworking and did not love the liberty of the mountains so much.
Similar fragments of material can be seen with the Franciscan information that has survived in AFIO regarding Manguirin/Himoragat. Huerta, as summarized at the start of this section, noted that the mission was begun around 1701, had a gobernadorcillo around 1733, and its site was transferred to the Himoragat location in 1753. This site was chosen as healthier than the older one—Huerta (1865, 203-204) says seven missionary priests became ill working there in 1753, five of whom died. Between 1740 and 1774, forty-seven priests there had to be relieved due to “malign fevers” that attacked them. However, the new site was not acceptable to the Filipinos there and they wanted to return to the old site. The Filipinos left the new mission for the mountains. In 1762, the Franciscans ultimately recognized the implacability of the Filipino resistance and reestablished the mission in its old site of Manguirin. By 1811, it was habitually listed in the Capitulos as “Vacant,” meaning no Franciscan was posted there, a situation that lasted until 1876 (though the mission may have been staffed by Secular or diocesan priests).[45]
Other Franciscan sources flesh out some of the detail. Back in 1702, there were 40 men and 46 women resident at the new mission; 4 of the men and 2 of the women were Aetas.[46] The rest were offspring of Aetas and Malay, with successful catechizing only occurring with this group. There were an additional 242 persons (120 males, 122 females), who were remontados who had come down from the mountains to the missions.[47] We are told that most of these only stayed long enough for their children to be baptized. By 1707, there were 500 “converted cimmarones” at the Mission or in nearby fields.[48] By 1733 the number of houses was reported to be 120.[49]
A fuller account dates from one of a set of 1756 manuscripts, during the time of the abortive attempt to move the location of the Manguirin mission site to Himoragat.[50] It is particularly useful since it suggests something of the priorities of the Filipinos at the mission, though it is written by a Spanish Franciscan. My paraphrase is intended to stay close to the text in order to convey as much of this perspective as possible. The manuscript speaks of the establishment of the Mission of Manguirin in 1700 or in 1701. At first there was only a modest rectory there, but some years later, with the help of Filipinos from Quipayo and from Calabagnan, a more substantial building was erected. Around 1719 or 1720, a Franciscan moved the mission to what is now called Manguirin. Unfortunately this site turned out to be notoriously unhealthy and water access was from a river half a legua away. Only a few houses were built there, most of the population preferring to live in nearby rancherias. The Franciscan adds that the mission buildings (church and rectory) at Manguirin were constructed by ten Filipinos as well as other skilled labor from Quipayo, Calabagnan, Milavor, and Minalabag, paid for from Franciscan funds (alms). Furnishings for the buildings also came from Franciscan alms. There is a reference in passing to soldiers having been stationed there as well.
One of the drawbacks of such the dispersed population and reluctance to reside in the mission proper was inconstant attendance at Sunday mass, though attendance by Christians and cimarrones alike was quite good at the weekly, Wednesday market. Indeed, there was an active trade on Saturdays and even Sundays by cimarrones who exchanged their products (especially wax and abaca) in Bikol “for meat, fish, tobacco, iron, and many other things.” We are told that the real reason they did not want to live in the mission proper is that “in reality they don’t want a priest, only the shadow of a priest, from whom they can get necessities and escape from their miseries.” For when they come to the mission to see the priest, they are received with support. Then they can leave again.
The Franciscan argues that the site at Himoragat would be better than the one at Manguirin since there is more space for fields, it is close to the sea for fishing, is near two rivers for fresh water, and already has a variety of crops and trees under cultivation there. Access to the church would be better for Christians and cimarrones alike, and access by the priest to them and to nearby settlements would be easier as well.
Another manuscript from this particular collection has a note from the royal treasury setting forth, as of 7 February 1756, sums allocated for Franciscan priests in and around Manguirin from about 1708. We learn from this that the Franciscans had three missionaries working in the hills there around 1708, but then only one to about 1711, followed by two until 1721. Thereafter there was only one Franciscan, who worked from the mission of Manguirin. After 1726, one was stationed there another worked in the mountains near Ragay, with that arrangement continuing for about thirty years, with each priest accompanied by an escort of six Filipinos.
This manuscript set has, as we have seen, valuable information, especially for suggestions regarding Filipino priorities in residence, the existence and importance of trade, sufficient danger to justify soldiers or an escort (escolta) of six Filipinos for each priest, and Filipino opposition that resulted in negating the Franciscan attempt to move the mission from Manguirin to Himoragat. These and other themes will be discussed more fully beginning in the next section of this essay.
[1] Based on my research in 1979-1980 at the Archivo Franciscano Ibero-Oriental in Madrid (AFIO henceforth) and my dissertation research in 1972 when the archive was located in Pastrana, Spain. I am grateful to have had this opportunity, which was funded by Fulbright and the Social Science Research Council grants. I am most appreciative of the courtesy and collegial welcome I received from the Franciscans at AFIO, and particularly from the conversations and aid received from the archivist, P. Fr. Cayetano Sánchez Fuertes.
[2] Filipinos is the term I use for all non-Europeans born in the Philippine Islands, including areas not ruled by Spain. This usage is anachronistic but convenient. It does not assume any sense of shared national identity among these women and men, be they Ilocano, Tagalog, Bicolano, Cebuano, Ifugao, Samareño, Moro, etc.
[3] Lowland pueblos or municipalities in the Spanish Philippines usually had a central core (the población), where one could find the church, rectory, government house, and houses of at least the upper class Filipinos. The bulk of the population of a municipality might live in settlements outside the población, ranging in size downwards from visitas to barrios to rancherias and sitios. Terminology associated with missions is a bit confusing since the terms sitio and rancherias and, occasionally, visita sometimes occur in the manuscripts. If we understand that missions were congregations in process, then surrounding settlements (whatever they were called) should also be seen as potential wills-o’-the-wisp as well. Filipino officials for the pueblos were known as gobernadorcillos, tenientes, alguaciles, cabezas de barangay. Filipino officials in the missions tended to be called tenientes or alguaciles, but sometimes the term gobernadorcillo occurs; which of course is the wrong term and a rather confusing usage.
[4] P. Fr. Francisco José Pérez Cobos o de la Encarnación [name on the manuscript is Francisco, Pérez de los Cobos y Maestre de la Encarnación, O.F.M.], Manifiesto canónico-politico-moral en que se hace ver lo vil y precioso del presente estado de las tres missions de Puncan, Caranglan and Pantabangan y se proponen los medios que mas pueden conducer a sus mejoras en lo Cristiano y civil. Ms., 240 leaves, dated 14 September 1785, Puncan, copy provided through the courtesy of the Santa Barbara [California] Mission Archives. If referenced repeatedly in nearby portions of the text, I will use the parenthetical Pérez Cobos Manifiesto, 1785.
[5] The legua, whether “Castilian” or not, probably was around 2.6 miles in length. Units of measurement used in the Philippines before the twentieth century are notoriously difficult to confidently convert to contemporary units. The Franciscan writer Huerta says that a legua was the distance a person could walk in an hour [Por una legua se entenderá lo que suele caminar un hombre en el espacio de una hora], which would probably mean 2.5 to 3 miles. The reference from Huerta is from Félix de Huerta, O.F.M., Estado geográfico, topográfico, estadístico, histórico-religioso de la santa y apostólica Provincia de San Gregorio Magno, de religiosos Menores Descalzos de la Regular y más estrecha Observancia de N. S. P. S. Francisco en las islas Filipinas; comprende el número de religiosos, conventos, pueblos, situación de estos, años de su fundación, tributos, almas, producciones, industrias, casos especiales de su administración spiritual, en el archipiélago Filipino, desde su fundación en el año de 1577 hasta el de 1865 ( 2nd ed. Binondo: M. Sánchez, 1865), in the Advertencias at the start of the volume [p. 4]. I use this useful source throughout this essay, abbreviated as Huerta (1865).
[6] Museo Naval, Ms. 135, Doc. 7: 1792. Diario de la expedición de Pineda desde Manila a la zona norte de Luzón. Descripción detallada de este region y sus habitantes. Ff. 369-484.
[7] Usually described in manuscripts until the second half of the nineteenth century as tributos, tributos enteros, or as tributarios.
[8] Nothing in tribute because the taxable population was too low (due to illness and by special exemptions) and there was not sufficient production to support such a tax (p. 8, Pérez Cobos Manifiesto, 1785).
[9] Félix de Huerta, O.F.M., Estado geográfico, topográfico, estadístico, histórico-religioso de la santa y apostólica Provincia de San Gregorio Magno, de religiosos Menores Descalzos de la Regular y más estrecha Observancia de N. S. P. S. Francisco en las islas Filipinas; comprende el número de religiosos, conventos, pueblos, situación de estos, años de su fundación, tributos, almas, producciones, industrias, casos especiales de su administración spiritual, en el archipiélago Filipino, desde su fundación en el año de 1577 hasta el de 1865. 2nd ed. Binondo: M. Sánchez, 1865. 713pp. Here: pp. 91-92 (Carranglan), 89-91 (Pantabangan), and 92-94 (Pungcan). Henceforth this key source will be referenced as Huerta, 1865.
[10] There is more information on this transfer in Archivo Franciscano Ibero-Oriental (AFIO henceforth), 89/26, Cesión de los PP. Agustinos a la Provincia de San Gregorio las misiones de estos pueblos. Despacho del Gobierno para la entrega.
[11] Calumpan, Daraetan, Limotan, San Andrés [de Lanating], San Antonio, San Pablo [de los Montes], San Pedro y San Pablo.
[12] Not to be confused with the pueblo of San Pablo de los Montes, in Laguna Province, near Calauan, Nagcarlang, Dolores, and Tiaong (in Quezon Province) (Huerta, 1865, 176-178).
[13] AFIO 90/72. Informe de Fr. Francisco Maceyra, O.F.M., sobre las misiones de Calumpan y Daraetan. Daraetan, 17 July 1764, 13ff.; here, f. 4.
[14] Antolín Abad Pérez, O.F.M., “Los franciscanos en Filipinas (1578-1898).” Revista de Indias, 24:97-98 (July-December 1964), 411-44; here, p. 422.
[15] AFIO 90/47. Carta de Fr. Nicolas de San Pedro Regalado al Provincial sobre el estado de la mission. Calumpan, 1 fol., 20 August 1754. AFIO has other manuscripts from 1754-1755 on Calumpan, but they are almost unusable due to deterioration. Of these, perhaps the most notable are AFIO 90/37, 90/38, 90/39, 90/40, 90/41, 90/43, 90/44, 90/45, 90/46, 90/48, and 90/49, judging from the archival descriptions.
[16] AFIO 8/16. Informe al Gobernador General sobre Misiones, Ms., 9 August 1803, fol. 2.
[17] AFIO 90/65. Carta de P. Fr. José Osca a Don Tomás Argente, Mabitac, 24 April 1712; and AFIO 90/64, Relación de los bautizados, casados y confesados en los montes de Daraetan por Fr. José Osca… Mabitac, 24 April 1712.
[18] Lorenzo Perez, O.F.M., Informe del P. Francisco Antonio Maceyra sobre varios puntos de los que convendría tratar en el Concilio provincial de Manila,” Archivo Ibero-Americano, 30 (1928), 375-397; here, 375. This is from a 17 July 1764 by P. Fr. Francisco Antonio Maceyra, whose original can be found in AFIO 50/9.
[19] AFIO G/9, Tablas Capitulares, 1765-1814, f. 83v, 7 June 1783. The reference to “Yndios Cimarrones” would seem to indicate lowlanders (“Yndios”) who had fled to the hills, sometimes called remontados.
[20] AFIO 8/16. Informe al Gobernador General sobre Misiones. Ms., 9 August 1803, fol. 2.
[21] Alevec, Binatangan, Bonabue, Bongog, Casignan, Casiguran, Catalangan, Comblan, Debimbinan, Dibutarec, Dipaculao, Divilican, Etmolen, Lauang, Malandez, San Ildefonso, San Juan Bautista in the Montes de Casiguran, Tabueyon, Tambaguen, and Umirey. In addition, some statistics include categories for both Baler and a Misión de Baler. I have been unable to find an explanation or description for this mission in the AFIO manuscripts. Aside from the occasional statistic, because I have no information on this mission as such, I have ignored it as a separate category and in the discussion in the text.
[22] The full statement reads: “Esta mission se dejó el dia 21 de Noviembre de 1775 por haberse remontado la mayor parte, temerosos, como los de Tabueyon, del castigo, por no querer dejar la fatal inclinacion á cortar cabezas.” Also see the quotation below for Tabueyon.
[23] Huerta (1865, 345) says that the mission was doing well until a smallpox epidemic (viruelas) hit and “the few who remained fled, leaving [the mission] depopulated.”
[24] In fact no priest assigned for this mission specifically until ca. 1717. It was vacant (no assigned Franciscan) 1811-1840, 1847-1870. According to Regalado Trota Jose, comp., Curas de Almas. A Preliminary Listing of Parishes and Parish Priests in the 19th Century Philippines Based on the Guias de Forasteros, 1834-1898 (Manila: UST Publishing House, 2008. 4v. ), v. 3, 203, Casiguran had Secular parish priests in 1839, 1840, and from 1850-1864.
[25] First priest listed in the Capitulos for Dipaculao was in 1750.
[26] In the Chapter assignment lists (Capítulos), Divilican was always served by the priest assigned to Manguirin, Salog, or Dibutarec.
[27] The full quotation from Huerta (1865, 566-567) reads: “El mayor trabajo de los misioneros era el desarraigar la perverse costumbre de cortar cabezas de sus semejantes, y aunque conseguian no poco, sin embargo, tal era su ferocidad que en la noche del dia 1.o de Octubre de 1770 degollaron á su misionero Fr. Juan Beltran, desde cuya época, temerosos del castigo, fueron remontándose, á pesar de las paternales promesas de nuestros religiosos de que no se les castigaría, y el dia 21 de Noviembre de 1775 fué preciso retirar al misionero por haberse marchado todos.” Also see the quotation above for Alevec.
[28] AFIO 89/65, Carta del P. Pedro de la Cruz Alcocer al Provincial dandole cuenta del estado de las misiones. Casiguran, 28 March 1721. 2ff., ms., original.
[29] AFIO 89/59, Carta del P. Vicente Ingles al Provincial sobre el estado de la misión. Casiguran, 1 fol., 29 July 1718.
[30] AFIO 19/15, P. Fr. Alejandro Ferrer. Carta al Custodio P. Miguel de S. Bernardo. Manila, junio o julio 1753, f. 1v.
[31] Archivo de la Provincia del Santo Rosario, University of Santo Tomas, Manila, Tomo 4, Doc. 18: Relación del Descubrimiento, y Entrado de los Religiosos de N. S. P. S. Francisco de la Apostólica Provincia de S. Gregorio de las islas Philipinas en los Pueblos, o Rancherias de los Montes altos de Baler, en la Contracosta de dichas islas. Printed, 17pp., June 1754. Based upon a report to the Franciscan Provincial by P. Fr. Manuel de Jesus María Fermoselle [P. Fr. Manuel Ramos de Jesús y Maria]. Pages 1-7 are made up of a letter to the Franciscan Provincial by P. Fr. Manuel de San Agustin, dated 25 February 1754, Baler; pp. 7-10 are a letter to the same person, dated 9 March 1754, written by P. Fr. Manuel de Jesus Maria, Fermoselle, and he has another pp. 10-11, dated 21 May 1754; and a third one, pp. 11-16, dated 25 May 1754. Cited henceforth as Relación, June 1754. Also see AFIO 89/71, Relación del descubrimiento y entrada de los religiosos de N. P. S. Francisco … en los pueblos o Rancherias de los Montes altos de Baler, en la contra costa de la Isla de Luzon. Imp. En Orihuela, 1756. 30pp.
[32] Huerta as we saw had suggested it had been abandoned around 1749, which apparently is in error.
[33] An anonymous 1751 Franciscan report indicates that the Franciscans thought that the usable lands in the Baler mountains “are very fertile and yield rice, sugarcane, wheat [trigo], [and] coconuts….” AFIO 145/1, P. Fr. Casimiro Pitarque, [comp.], Resoluciones y conferencias morales propuestas por varios Presidentes, en diferentes conventos de la Provincia de San Gregorio. Ms., bound vol., 593pp; here, p. 205, taken from pp. 205-215, 9 August 1751, “Ynforme, que sobre la Visita, que hize de las Missiones de los Montes, ofrezco a N. C. H. Provincial [P.] Fr. Juan Rino de Brozas, para que con facilidad pueda tener presente el estado actual de las dichas Missiones, y el que puede esperarse en adelante.” Referred henceforth as Pitarque, Ynforme, 1751.
[34] AFIO G/9, Tablas Capitulares, 1765-1814, ff. 117v-120, 26 May-1 June 1792.
[35] AFIO 89/68. Oficio del Gobernador al Provincial pidiendole informe sobre traslacion del pueblo de Casignan a Baler, e Informe del Provincial al Gobierno dandole cuenta de los inconvenientes que se seguirian de dicha agregacion. Manila, 27 August 1836. Romero, 17 September 1836. 2ff., ms., orig.
[36] Himoragat, Mabatobato, Manguirin, Pili, Ragay (often linked to the pueblo of Lupi), Salog/Goa, Sangay, Siruma, Tigaon, and Tinambac.
[37] AFIO 92/31 [Relación de las ordines dadas por el Alcalde Don Fermin de Zaldivar e informe de las misiones del Isarog, refiere sus progresos desde su fundación hasta dicho año. Isarog, 8ff., 24 January 1775] suggests that the establishment of Tinambac dates from ca. 1759.
[38] The 1687 date fits well since Huerta (1865, 462) says that Himoragat was founded while P. Fr. Francisco de San José, ó Mondejar, was Provincial (May 1684-May 1687).
[39] AFIO 92/31, already cited in full, above, indicates that the mission was around at least by 1707.
[40] AFIO 93/25. Inventario y entrega [by P. Fr. Vicente de San Antonio, O.F.M.] de Goa a D. [P.] Antonio Chica. Goa, 22 March 1812, 6ff., orig. ms. I could not locate Father Antonio Chica in Regalado Trota Jose, Curas de Almas: A Preliminary Listing of Parishes and Parish Priests in the 19th Century Philippines based on the Guias de Forasteros, 1834-1898. Manila: University of Santo Tomas, 2008 (4 volumes).
[41] AFIO 93/10. Padron general de la gente de esta mission de Salog y de sus visitas. Salog, 30 September 1741. And Padron general de la gente de esta mission de Salog y de sus visitas. 1742.
The soldiers were under the command of Capitan Don Francisco de la Cruz, “natural del Pueblo de Lagonoy.” There were eight soldiers from Lagonoy, 5 from Sagnay, 9 from Cagsaua, 7 from Guinobatan, and 9 from Camarines.
[42] AFIO 93/12. Lista de los naturales del pueblo de Lagonoy [que estaba agregada en esta Misión de Salog] que han marchado a otros pueblos. 1753. One couple each had gone to Calabagnan [sic] and “En el monte;” two each had gone “En termino de Lagonoy” and “En Loag;” and three had moved to Himoragat. Unmarried adults who had moved to other places are also listed, but since the total number of such independent adults in the mission is not given, the significance of the number (which was 100) is obscured. We lack the denominator but the figure of 100 is probably lower than the actual figure, both because their relocation was in effect registered with the priest (presumably others might just have decamped); and the destinations listed are pueblos with none of the references we saw with the married couples to mountain regions.
[43] AFIO 93/16, … Informe del P. Juan de Jerez, 17 October 1753. In this same year a Franciscan noted Tigaon mission residents worked as couriers and as [an armed] escort for the priest (AFIO 93/15, Informe sobre los indios fugitivos de Lagonoy al Alcalde mayor de Camarines (Santa Clara, Isarog, 18 October 1753, Ms., orig., 1 fol.).
[44] AFIO 92/31. P. Fr. José Casañas, Misiones Comisario Provincia: Relación de las ordines dadas por el Alcalde Don Fermin de Zaldivar e informe de las misiones de Isarog, refiere sus progresos desde su fundacion hasta dicho año. Isarog, 8ff., 24 January 1775. I worked with a 6 ff. copy; folio designations (here ff. 3v-4v) are to the copy. AFIO 93/21 (Informe del P. Fr. Gines Antonio Fernandez sobre las misiones de Ysarog), Goa, 14 May 1776, puts the Salog establishment date at 1701 with the death of the Franciscan founder in 1707. Then it was vacant for many years until 1741 when Goa received its first Franciscan priest, which would be a century before its name and assignments are listed as such in the Capitulos. There might be more information and fewer puzzles in two sources in AFIO which I did not work with: AFIO 93/30, P. Fr. Manuel Crespo, Memoria sobre la reduccion de los Monteses del Isarog en Camarines Sur. Manila: Tip. Ramirez, 1881, 80pp. And AFIO 93/29, “El Catolico Filipino” Diario. Noticias sobre Ysarog y sus habitantes, 22 Dec 1861 and 25 Dec. 1861.
[45] Regalado Trota Jose, comp., Curas de Almas. A Preliminary Listing of Parishes and Parish Priests in the 19th Century Philippines Based on the Guias de Forasteros, 1834-1898 (Manila: UST Publishing House, 2008. 4v. ), v. 2, 158, lists D. Father Domingo Francisco as the priest in Manguirin from 1839-1842 Spanish Franciscans, v. 4, 29 has him there in 1830 as well); and D. Juan de Alcantara from 1843-1864. AFIO indicates that Manguirin was turned over to Seculars as early as 1807: AFIO 93/24. Inventario y entrega [by P. Fr. José Rivaya] de Manguirin a D. Vicente Ramos [not listed in Jose], clérigo. Manguirin, 10 September 1807, 1 fol., ms. orig.
[46] “Depending on the group, these Negritos refer to themselves by terms such as Aeta, Agta, Alta, Arta, Ata, Ati, Atta, Batak, or Mamanwa. In northeastern Luzon they refer to themselves, as well as the languages they speak, by the term agta. …
“The Agta are generally ‘Dumagats’ by the lowland peoples in Aurora Province. This is a verbalized form of the Tagalog word dagat ‘ocean,’ and the term may have originally meant ‘people of the sea,’ since the Agta often live along the seacoast. The Agta have never been, however, a sea-oriented people. In some areas of eastern Luzon the Agta are referred to by the Ilokano people as pugut (which means ‘black’ in Ilokano), but this latter term is not used in Aurora Province.” Thomas N. Headland, Why Foragers Do Not Become Farmers: A Historical Study of a Changing Ecosystem and Its Effect on a Negrito Hunter-Gatherer Group in the Philippines, Ph.D. dissertation, Anthropology, University of Hawaii, May 1986, 1-2. A seventeenth-century Franciscan source (AFIO, 137/1, P. Fr. Francisco de San José, Bacvlo de Parrocos y Ministros de Doctrinas que observan los Religiosos de N. P. S. Francisco en esta Provincia de S. Gregorio el Magno de estas Islas Philipinas para su Alivio nuevamente arreglado a las Constituciones, Ceremonial y Doctrina de Novicios de esta Provincia y expurgada de algunas cosas antiguas. Año de 1686, f. 37v, pt. 9 ) writes as follows: “En algunos Pueblos ay un genero de gente que llaman Aetas, estos estan siempre en el monte, pagan el tribute de diez reales por Cassa entera a los que tienen por encomenderos, a estos no se les manda nada: hará bien el Ministro entratarles con humanidad, y no encargarles cossa ninguna, salvo si huviere costumbre, como lo ay en algunos Pueblos, de que traypan algun poco de vejucos, o cestos, que llaman Pangnan; porque se les aprietan en algo con facilidad seamotan y no oyen Missa, ni acuden al Pueblo, y será acertado averiguar a donde se han baptizado por que yo he visto algunos que acuden al Pueblo, y oyen Missa, y no estavan Baptizados. De estos tiene tambien su estipendio el Ministro, que le ha de pagar el que les cobra el tributos. Tambien se les nombres un Fiscalillo o Theniente para que tengan algun foco genero de govierno.” There is also a short description of the Aetas, primarily in their resistance to resettlement and conversion, in Lorenzo Perez, O.F.M., Informe del P. Francisco Antonio Maceyra sobre varios puntos de los que convendría tratar en el Concilio provincial de Manila,” Archivo Ibero-Americano, 30 (1928), 375-397; here, 376-377.
[47] 6 male and 2 female Aetas might have been included in these figures or meant to have been counted separately since of course they were not remontados.
[48] AFIO 93/8. Relación acerca de los Infieles bautizados y Visitas del Monte Ysarog. San Francisco de Naga, P. Fr. Matias de Valdesoto, 20 April 1702. 1707, Relacion de los infieles bautizados Lagonoy, 26 March 1707.
[49] AFIO 93/9. Peticion para que se nombre Gobernadorcillo en la mission de [Manguirin] por tener ya 120 casas. Dirigido al Governador General D. Fernando Valdes Tamon. Manila, 4 February 1733. Copia. Acompaña Decreto del Gobierno para que el Alcalde Mayor procedan a las elecciones. Manila, 23 February 1733. Copia.
[50] AFIO 93/17. Carta del P. Fr. Alejandro Ferrer, Provincial, al alcalde mayor de Camarines sobre el Expediente de Manguirin.
Cambio a Himoragat efectuada por Fr. José Esteban Gascueña sin autorizaciones. Sapa, 23 February 1756. 2ff.
Informe sobre puntos principals acerca de la traslación de Manguirin a Himoragat. Ms., 1756.
Carta de Don Fernando Caraveo al Provincial P. Alejandro Ferrer, sobre cambio de Manguirin a Himoragat. Manila, 7 February 1756.
Carta del Provincial P. Alejandro Ferrer al P. Juan de Taracena sobre Lagonoy y Manguirin y su
cambio a Himoragat. Santa Ana de Sapa, 18 February 1756.
Carta del P. Juan de Taracena al Provincial P. Alejandro Ferrer sobre cambio de Manguirin a
Himoragat. Manila, February 1756. This is the manuscript primarily used in the text above.