 |
| The Hacienda de Calamba during the Philippine Revolution |
A hacienda (Spanish: estate,
ranch or farm), in its Hispanic signification, is a landed estate organized to
supply a small-scale market by means of scarce capital. It is operated by a
dominant landowner called haciendado who employs a dependent labor
force. The laborers were theoretically free wage earners. In practice, however,
their employers somehow kept them in an indebted state, and thus, were bound to the
land. The factors of production are employed to accumulate capital and to
support the status aspirations of the owner.
In the Philippines , the term hacienda
is used rather loosely. By emphasizing internal social relations rather than
the area of lands, every Philippine landowner who held few sharecroppers is
considered as a haciendado, known in the Philippines as haciendero.[1]
The Corporacion de Padres Dominicos de Filipinas (henceforth, the
Dominicans), the owner of the Hacienda de Calamba, belongs to the mendicant
orders. Thus, like the Franciscans, they were barred by their rules and vows of
poverty to own earthly possessions. These friars were expected to live a life
of utmost personal poverty and simplicity. Their temporal possessions should
only be minimum—no lands, no funded property, no fixed sources of income.[2]
Maintaining this ideal, however, proved
to be unworkable in practice. As early as 1640, the Dominican order in the Philippines
mitigated the rigidity of this regulation in the following justification:
The haciendas will be cultivated and improved in order
to transport religious from Spain
to the Philippines … These
haciendas will be under the custody of the Rector of our College of Santo Tomas Spain
Thereafter, the Dominicans acquired, among
others, the ranches[4]
of Tunasancilla in Tondo (1643), Biñan in Laguna (1644), Tabuco in Laguna
(1660), Indan in Cavite (1761), Santa Cruz in Cavite (1761), Naic in Cavite
(1831), Calamba Nueva in Laguna (1833), Calamba Vieja in Laguna (1883) and Los
Baños in Laguna (1833).[5]
Through the income derived from the lands, the Dominicans supported their
missions in the Philippines
as well as the University
of Santo Tomas
The Hacienda
de Calamba
One of the haciendas acquired by the
Dominicans in 1833 was the Calamba
Nueva in Laguna which was subsequently included Calamba Vieja in 1883. The two
haciendas were collectively called the Hacienda de Calamba. The territorial extent hacienda de
Calamba at the time of its acquisition was
16,424 hectares. In 1888, the gobernadorcillo and the principales
of the town of Calamba
delineated what was publicly known as the scope of the hacienda:
On the north, the part of the lake until the Island of
Calamba; on the south, until the Bigo Bridge, Olango, Santol and Mount Sungay;
on the east, until Los Baños in Bacong, comprising almost one half of Mount
Maquiling; on the west, until Cabuyao and Santa Rosa, having an area of at
least 700 quiñones of clean cleared land.[7]
Many Calambeños believed that the
above territorial delineations cover more area than what the land titles held
by the Dominicans described. Thus, in many instances, the Calambeños asked for
the presentation of the said titles,[8] which
the Dominicans refused to do on the reason that the Pope prohibited the church
from submitting to the jurisdiction of the temporal authorities. Religious
orders did not and cannot commit any usurpation of lands.[9]
In 1905, as a step towards solving
the Friar Lands Question, the Bureau of Lands (under the American colonial
rule) surveyed the hacienda and found that its total land area was 18,501.8694
hectares. In other words, the hacienda accumulated 2,077.8694 hectares in the
course of time. These accumulated areas became the subject of dispute for which
the Dominicans which challenged to present their titles and which they strongly
opposed.
The Administration
of the Hacienda
The Hacienda de Calamba was
administered by a Dominican lay brother administrator (hermano administrador)
who was appointed by the Provincial Superior of the Dominican Order in the Philippines . The
lay brother administrator managed the day-to-day operations of the hacienda
subject to rules and regulations laid down by the Dominicans. The hacienda was
audited annually by the visitador who was also appointed by the
Provincial Superior.
To
the Dominican landowners, the lay brother administrator was a loyal,
trustworthy and efficient servant. His advice was given weight in the
formulation of policies for the administration of the estate. Indeed, the
success of haciendas in the Philippines
can be credited to the lay brother administrators who managed them as if they
were the owners.[10] But to the tenants, he is
venal and ignorant, mindful only of flattering his masters.[11]
Though the administrator was under
the direct authority of the provincial of the order, he was given a great deal of
freedom and most decisions were left at his discretion being the most
well-informed person in the affairs of the hacienda. He had no authority to
eject or replace tenants as this power was bestowed upon the visitador,
however, in practice it was him who actually made the decisions ejecting
tenants.[12]
Eighteenth-century Spanish officials
found him to be a local tyrant. He
treated his tenants as slaves, published his own decrees, ran his own jails,
harbored bandits, and illegally hid some natives in the estate from government
tax officials so that the hacenderos could pocket the tribute payments.[13]
Besides the visitador and hermano
administrador, the parish priest (cura parroco) also played
an important role in the management of the hacienda. The parish priest
complemented the administrator. This was especially true when the religious
order which owned the hacienda also held the parish located nearby or within
the hacienda. In extreme cases, the parish priest disciplined recalcitrant
tenants by excommunication.
The Civil Guard (guardia civil),
a civil-military police force, took up the task of maintaining peace and order.
Soon, the guardia civil
together with the hermano administrador, became instrumental in
subjecting the tenants of the hacienda to abuses and tyranny.[14] The guardia civil became an
oppressive force in the rural areas.
The Lands and their Rents
In
all Dominican hacienda documents, it appeared that the owners employed two
accounting methods. On the official registries, the tenants were listed and the
lands they held described in terms of quiñones
(5.76 hectares per quiñon) and balitas (one-tenth of a quiñon). However, rents were determined
by the area of land which could be planted with a given portion of seedlings.
Thus, it is difficult to evaluate whether or not the rents of the lands of the Hacienda de Calamba were reasonable.[15]
The lands in Hacienda de Calamba were customarily classified into into three: Tierras Palayeras, Tierras Cañadulzales and Tierras Catijanes for purposes of
determining the rents. Tierras Palayeras,
lands suited for rice farming, were further classified into regadio and secano. Based on the productivity of the lands, the regadio and secano lands were classified as either first class, second class
and third class lands. The third class being considered the least productive
type. In 1886, Mariano Herbosa reported that irrigated rice land, even if it
has no water (secano), were required
to pay a tax of fifty (50) cavanes of palay (unhusked rice) and land
with six cavanes of seed pay five (5) pesos in
cash. [16]
However,
the tenants and subtenants complained that though the agreed rent was thirty (30)
pesos for lands with six cavanes of seed, if the harvests were good, the
administrators unilaterally increased the rents. But if the harvests were poor,
the administrators don’t decrease the rents.[17] If
poor harvests or bad prices of crops caused the tenants’ default of payments of
the annual rents, they had to pay double the following year. This took place in
Calamba in the years 1886 and 1887.[18]
Tierras Cañadulzales (sugar lands) were
dry lands suited for sugar cane, maize and upland rice cultivation. Rents of
sugar lands were generally less than those for rice paddies. However, the rents
increased from fifteen pesos for a quiñon
of first class land in the 1840s, to twenty-five (25) pesos and finally thirty
(30) pesos. In 1886, Mariano Herbosa reported that according to custom, lands
classified as second and third-class were taxed at twenty-five (25) pesos or
twenty (20) pesos.
While
Tierras Catijanes were higher shore
land which dried up during low tide. Tierras
Catijanes included pesquerias or
fishing grounds and tomana or garden
plots. Various amounts were likewise levied on the plants in the fields far
from the town. The tax on the palay
is separate from that on maize, mongo, or garlic.
“The
country”, sighed Paciano in 1883, is “a country most burdened with taxes.”[19]
“This year,” he added in 1886, “if things turn out well for me, I shall try to
have my own land, giving Pansol either to Silvestre or to anybody else or
return it to the Estate, because it is not possible for a farmer to support
himself in these lands which are overloaded with rent, considering the bad
price of sugar.”[20]
The Collection of Rents
When
the visitador arrived, all the
tenants were summoned to appear before him. He began to call the roll and as
they were called, the tenants approached the visitador to pay their cannons. Those who settled their accounts
will be marked “paid,” [21] while those who weren’t
able to pay were given ten-day grace period after which, the land will be
declared “vacant.” Still, though
rarely, there were those who pleaded for extension of time to pay the cannon.
These were granted.[22]
One
peculiar complaint was the failure of the visitador
to issue receipts for the taxes collected every time the Calambeños pay. In
1883, Paciano Rizal wrote:
This is the time to pay land
rent at the Hacienda and contrary to the general customs they accept the money
without issuing any receipt to any one. Has this any relation to the important
reforms of the general or it is nothing more than one of the arbitrary nets of
the administrator? I’m more inclined to the latter one, though I would like it
to be the first one…[23]
And in 1886, Mariano Herbosa wrote:
I’m looking for a receipt to
send you but I cannot find any, because we don’t get a receipt every time we
pay. Any way it is valueless, as it does not state the amount paid; it only
says that the tax for that year has been paid, without stating whether it is five centavos, twenty-five
centavos, one hundred, or one thousand pesos. The residents here who ask or get
the said receipt accepts it with closed eyes. The receipt has no signature in
the place where the amount paid ought to be, though it bears their name. Until
now I cannot comprehend why some are signed and others are not. This is more or
less what is happening here in the payment of land tax and it has been so for
many years, since I can remember.[24]
[8]Paciano
Rizal to Jose Rizal, no place, May 27, 1890, Letters Between Rizal and
Family Members (Manila: National Heroes Commission, 1964), 295 - 298.
[9]Archivo
de la Universidad de Santo Tomas, Libros, Tomo 5, folio 5.
[14]Lucia Rizal to Jose Rizal, Calamba, May 30, 1890, Letters
Between Rizal and Family Members (Manila: National Heroes Commission,
1964), 301-302.
[15] Dennis
Morrow Roth, The Friar Estates of the Philippines
[16]Mariano
Herbosa to Jose Rizal, Calamba, August 29, 1886, Letters Between Rizal and
Family Members (Manila: National Heroes Commission, 1964), 239-241.
[17]Mariano
Herbosa to Jose Rizal, Calamba, August 29, 1886, Letters Between Rizal and
Family Members (Manila: National Heroes Commission, 1964), 239-241.
[18] Dennis
Morrow Roth, The Friar Estates of the Philippines
[19]Paciano
Rizal to Jose Rizal, Calamba, May 26, 1883, Letters
Between Rizal and Family Members (Manila: National Heroes Commission,
1964), 96-99.
[20]Paciano
Rizal to Jose Rizal, Calamba, May 26, 1886, Letters
Between Rizal and Family Members (Manila: National Heroes Commission,
1964), 96-99.
[23]Paciano
Rizal to Jose Rizal, Calamba, May 26, 1883, Letters Between Rizal and Family
Members (Manila: National Heroes Commission, 1964), 96-99.
[24]
Mariano Herbosa to Jose Rizal, Calamba, August 29, 1886, Letters Between Rizal and Family Members (Manila: National Heroes
Commission, 1964), 239-241.
No comments:
Post a Comment