¹ Cédula of June 7, 1687, with corresponding testimonios; A. I., 68–4–12.

² Cédula of October 30, 1692, King to Valdés; A. I., 68–4–12. In the words of the commission itself, Valdés was named “para poner cobro en los delitos que en el Peru y Nueva España resultaren en favor de la real hacienda por compras de villas, jurisdicciones ó qualquier bienes raices, ó cosa que se huviese, por venta enagenado de la Corona, concediendole facultad de subdelegar estas comisiones en ministros de las audiencias de Indias y otras qualesquier personas de su satisfacción para recaudar los caudales que procediesen de estos efectos, y que se remitiesen por quenta separada al mismo ministro, ó á el que le subcediese en la comisión que otorgase á las partes las apelaciones de sus sentencias á el Consejo de Indias, y que este sugeto la sirve assi y igualmente.”

³ There was some doubt in the minds of the councillors regarding the question of whether appeals should be entertained by the juez privativo or by the Council itself, and whether said juez should render account for money collected from fines directly to the Council or to the Real Contaduría. The cédula of 1692, referred to above, established the authority of the Council, but the subsequent resolution of November 13, 1717, declared that everything pertaining to real hacienda should be remitted vía reservada, without the intervention of the Council of the Indies. Two consultas were sent by the Council to the King on September 28, 1735, and October 30, 1736, respectively, asking for a royal resolution on the subject, and presenting arguments on both sides of the question. The matter was settled by the royal decree of November 16, 1737, which declared that thereafter the juez de composiciones should render account directly to the King, vía reservada, but that appeals in these cases should be entertained by the Council of the Indies. A. I., 141–4–5.

⁴ Recopilación de Leyes de Indias, Lib. 4, tit. 12.

⁵ Camacho Controversy, in Blair, and Robertson, , Philippine Islands, XLII, 26.Google Scholar

⁶ Concepción, , Historia General de Philipinas, VIII, 192.Google Scholar Concepción gives this date as 1675, but he contradicts himself by a subsequent discussion of Sierra's relations with Archbishop Camacho in 1698. Sierra could not have been sent to the Islands by Valdés in 1675, because the latter was not commissioned until 1692.

⁷ Papal Delegate to King, June 2, 1698; Blair, and Robertson, , Philippine Islands, LX, 33.Google Scholar

⁸ Concepción, VIII, 192–206. This question gave rise to a bitter controversy in 1906, between the modern Filipino writer, Dr. T. H. Pardo de Tavera, and the Dominicans of the University of Santo Tomás of Manila. Dr.Tavera, Pardo de, in his article in the Philippine Census (I, 340–346)Google Scholar, on religious conditions in the Philippines prior to the American occupation, painted a very dark picture of the work and general influence of the friars in the history of the Islands. In answer, the Dominicans cited the above quotation from the work of Concepción, to prove that Sierra was not sent for the express purpose, as Pardo de Tavera had alleged, of inspecting and verifying the friars' titles to lands. The statement to which the Dominicans took exception was as follows: “the King commissioned Auditor Sierra to compile data and send him a report as to the kinds of titles and descriptions of the valuable lands held by the friars, but the friars refused to furnish any information to the auditor, stating that they were exempt from any such formalities, and as ‥‥ they were unable to prove the legality of their titles they were declared to be “occupants in bad faith.” It has been noted above that neither Sierra nor Valdés were especially commissioned to investigate the titles to the friars' lands. See Reseña histórica de Filipinas desde su descubrimiento hasta 1903, by Dr.Tavera, T. H. Pardo de (it being the original Spanish edition of the article in the Philippine Census), p. 37.Google Scholar See also the Dominican reply to the above: Sobre una reseña histórica de Filipinas, pp. 68–89.

⁹ The modern historian of the Philippines, José Montero y Vidal, relates the object of Sierra's mission in terms still more unfavorable to the friars. He states that the lands referred to were the unassigned villages or lands belonging to the government, lands which had been usurped by the religious orders through the action of certain of their missionaries who had first evangelized among the Indians. Later, he says, the orders established themselves without troubling themselves as to titles.—Montero, y Vidal, , Historia General de Filipinas, I, 385.Google Scholar

¹⁰ The Bull, De la Cena was issued by Pope Urban VIII in 1627. It censured those temporal authorities who usurped the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, revenues, incomes and properties.—Footnote by Middleton in Blair, and Robertson, , Philippine Islands, XLII, 26.Google Scholar

¹¹ Sobre una reseña histórica, 65–66. This work states that Sierra later declared them to be holders in bad faith, and that, to enlist support for this denunciation, he went out among the Indians, stirred up strife among them, obtained testimony against the friars by dint of blows, beatings and unheard of cruelties, and thus proved them to be usurpers.

¹² Concepción, , Historia General de Philipinas, VIII, 193Google Scholar, et seq.

¹³ Fuerza (recurso de) “Apelación para ante el juez secular contra el abuso ó violencia que consta un juez eclesiástico.”—Alcubilla, , Diccionario de Administración, V, 807.Google Scholar A more simple definition is that furnished by A. P. Crushing, in Blair, and Robertson, , Philippine Islands, V, 292Google Scholar: “Fuerza is injury committed by an ecclesiastical judge, (1) in hearing a case which does not come within his jurisdiction, (2) non-observance of rules of procedure, (3) unjust refusal to allow an appeal. In such cases the aid of the secular courts may be invoked by the recurso de fuerza, and thus cases were brought before the Audiencia.” It came about that, through association, the encroachment of the civil authority upon the ecclesiastical jurisdiction was also termed fuerza. It was so designated in this case.

¹⁴ Montero, y Vidal, , Historia General de Filipinas, I, 385.Google Scholar

¹⁵ It is said that on this occasion Archbishop Camacho tried to make a bargain with the regulars. In exchange for the right of visiting them, he offered to support their pretensions to exemption from governmental interference in the land controversy. Camacho, according to the Dominicans of the University of Santo Tomás, first resisted Sierra, but when the friars would not submit to visitation he changed his attitude and sided with the visitador against the regulars. Sobre una reseña histórica, 74–77.

¹⁶ Papal Delegate to the Pope, June 2, 1698; Blair, and Robertson, , Philippine Islands, XLII, 33–42.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Blair, and Robertson, , Philippine Islands, XLII, 31.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Montero, y Vidal, , Historia General, I, 388.Google ScholarTavera, Pardo de, Philippine Census, I, 342.Google Scholar Sierra was unquestionably superseded because his mission had failed to accomplish anything but discord. The government was obliged to accede to the friars in this controversy, as it was compelled to do in the struggle over ecclesiastical visitation. Ozaeta's work shows a change of policy similar to that revealed by the recall of Archbishop Pardo from exile by Governor Curuzaelegui. (Blair, and Robertson, , Philippine Islands, XLII 28Google Scholar; L, 155, note).

¹⁹ The Dominicans, often cited in this paper, make the point that it was not within the province of the visitador to declare that the lands were not held in good faith. He was only empowered to decide whether the papers were executed legally and in good form. They point out that the titles have held good all these years; that the critical American government has examined and found them good (though it forced the sale of the lands on the grounds that the church should not continue to hold them), and they further quote Mr. Taft as having said that if the friar lands were not held in good title, there were no lands in the Philippines that were so held.

²⁰ The Dominican authors of the book quoted above allege that in making this statement they are in substantial agreement with all of the celebrated historians of the Philippines, including Concepción, Fonseca, Salazar, Zúniga, Montero y Vidal, and, in fact, all except Dr. Pardo Tavera.

²¹ Ozaeta to the Jesuit Provincial, September 16, 1698: A. I., 68–6–26.

²² Dr. Pardo de Tavera says that Ozaeta pigeon-holed the matter, but the whole question was settled as shown above. The government merely moderated its claims, but it did not entirely desist from them at this time. See Philippine Census I, 342.

²³ Velasco to Audiencia, June 17, 1723; A. I., 68–6–26. This, and the documents relative to the commission of Ozaeta, described above, are to be found as testimonios bearing on a subsequent commission which was given to Oidor Calderón, presently to be referred to.

The fact that the inspection of the titles to friar lands was only a part of the work of the juez de composiciones has already been stated. It may be noted again in the appointment of Velasco at a time when the friars had been exempted. This was also true in other parts of Spain's dominions. On September 27, 1697, Licentiate Don Juan Feixoo Centellas, oidor of the Audiencia of Guadalajara and juez de composiciones de tierras for Nueva Galicia and Nueva Vizcaya, made a report showing that he had passed upon the titles of twenty-three estates since he had been in office, none of which were ecclesiastical. (Feixoo to Valdés, September 27, 1697, A. I., 67–1–7.) The juez de composiciones de tierras has a counterpart today in the Philippines and in the United States in the court of claims.

²⁴ It must be remembered that while the government and the friars were having these differences, a much more transcendental struggle was in progress between church and state throughout the entire Spanish Empire over the question of ecclesiastical visitation. The two controversies must be considered in their inter-relation for a complete understanding of either. In the Philippines the conflict was as bitter as in any other part of the Empire, and the government had first supported the archbishop in the claims of the latter to the exercise of the prerogative of visitation. The orders would not recede from their position, however, and they threatened to leave the Islands if the prelate insisted. A great many did actually desert their parishes and come to Manila for the alleged purpose of debarkation for Spain. This alarmed the civil authorities, for, without the friars, the greater number of the parishes in the Philippines would have been without ecclesiastical occupants, on account of the paucity of secular priests. The government, therefore, receded from its position, and the friars emerged victorious in the struggle. (See my article on The Question of Ecclesiastical Visitation in the Philippines, in The Pacific Ocean in History. This paper was read at the session of the Panama-Pacific Historical Congress in July, 1915.)

²⁵ Velasco and Real Acuerdo to the King, June 12, 1723; A. I., 68–6–26.

²⁶ Cédula of September 27, 1736, the King to Pineda; A. I., 68–6–26.

²⁷ Pineda to Calderón, October 19, 1737; A. I., 68–6–26.

²⁸ Calderón to Pineda, May 29, 1739; A. I., 68–6–26.

²⁹ Blair, and Robertson, , The Philippine Islands, XLVIII, 27–35Google Scholar; 141–145 (note).

³⁰ Cédula of November 7, 1751, Blair, and Robertson, , The Philippine Islands, XLVIII, 33.Google Scholar

³¹ Sobre una reseña histórica, 84–89.