 |
| The administration of the Hacienda was done in this Casa. |
Year 1889,
the situation in Calamba worsened. The past locust infestations, low price of
sugar and other natural calamities had taken their toll. The practice of the
hacienda of not issuing receipts to rents paid[1]
aggravated the situation. If ever receipts were released, these were useless as
these contained no signature and no indication of any amount paid. The receipts
only stated the taxpayers’ names and the fact that the tax for that year had
been paid.[2] Thus,
year after year, the unpaid rents increased enormously for payments may end up
unreported.
By August,
after the tenants boycotted the May canon collection, the hacienda formally asked the court for the eviction
of defaulting tenants.[3]
Almost sixty (60) tenants were sued by the administrator of the Hacienda
before the Court of the Justice of the Peace.[4] The
list of receivables shown to the governor general during his November visit at
the hacienda appeared that the tenants paid nothing. This alarmed the governor
general for it displayed civil disobedience. [5]
Three things
worried the Calambeños about the case. First, the Justice of the Peace
confessed that he cannot go against the interests of the Dominican Corporation,
because he was a servant of the former syndic. Second, majority of the tenants
have no money to defray the costs of litigation. And third, word spread that if
the tenants lose the case, they will be expelled, and their warehouses, sugar
mills and everything built on the ground will be demolished.[6] The case
of Don Francisco Rizal y Mercado was a representative case.
The Rizal Case Before
the Municipal Court of Calamba
On 21 August
1889, Friar Gabriel Fernandez, administrator of the Hacienda de Calamba, for
and in behalf of the Corporacion de
Padres Dominicos de Filipinas (hereinafter, Corporacion) filed a formal petition to declare the estate
rented and held by one Don Francisco Rizal y Mercado and his family vacant. The
petition further prayed that the tenants be evicted from said land and
tenements. The petition was filed before the Municipal Court of Calamba, Province of Laguna
The
petitioner was represented by Don Vicente Ilagan who, upon request of the
respondents, presented his power of attorney to prosecute the case. The
respondents, on the other hand, were represented by Don Paciano Rizal y
Mercado, [7] a law
undergrad but able solicitor. Preliminary hearings were made on 26 November 1889 and 6 December 1889 . The trial
was conducted on 7 January
1890 where both parties asserted and proved their respective
claims.[8]
Petitioners
claimed that the contract of tenancy held by the respondents had already
expired and that respondents failed to pay a part of the annual rent amounting
to 472.21 pesos due on the year 1889.
Respondents
insinuated that in 1888 despite prompt payment, they were deprived of their tubigan.
All other tenants were left undisturbed despite their failure to pay rents for
two or three years. Consequently, respondents argued, there must be different
bases for ownership and legal possession of said lands. And since the petition
was founded on the ownership of the leased lands by the corporation,
respondents argued, said ownership must be proven by presenting the land title.
Respondents sought that the boundaries of the hacienda be defined so that all
lands not included therein can be declared free from rents, and rents unjustly
collected be returned.[9]
Petitioner
pointed out that from the very beginning, it was of public knowledge that the
lands in dispute, be it rice lands or farm lands, had been the property of the Corporacion de Santissimo Rosario[10]. All tenants recognized this ownership and
they conceded with the Corporacion as they renewed their contracts. These
proved the Corporacion’s ownership.
Respondents replied that if in the
past their fathers and forefathers acknowledged the domination of the
Corporacion, it was because of their ignorance or of the fatherly dealings of
the past hacienda administrators. Further, respondents claimed that ownership
of the said lands cannot be established by mere acquiescence of the tenants but
by land titles. Furthermore, respondents now repudiated the Corporacion’s
ownership of the subject lands as well as the Corporacion’s legal standing to
sue in the instant case.
On 20 March 1890, the
Municipal Court dismissed the petition of the Corporacion. The court reasoned
that for the Corporacion’s petition to prosper, it must first prove its
ownership over the subject lands by showing its titles. This condition was set
under section 1546 of the Law on Civil Trials. The failure of the petitioner to
show the said titles hampered the proper administration of justice.
After
carefully considering Sections 1546, 1561, 1563 and 1564 of the Law on Civil
Procedure, the court ruled that the petition was unjustified.
The Review of the
Rizal Case Before the Court of First Instance of Laguna
On 29 March 1890, the Corporacion appealed the
adverse decision of the Municipal Court of Calamba before the Court of First Instance of
Laguna, presided by Judge Celestino Dimayuga. Don Santiago Esquerra and Atty.
Manuel Navas Diaz represented the Provincia del Santissimo Rosario de
Filipinas while Don Paciano
R. Mercado represented the respondent Don Francisco R. Mercado.
On 28 April 1890, after a couple of
postponements, trial ensued. Counsel for the appellant, Atty. Navas Diaz,
prayed for the annulment of the decision of the Justice of the Peace. He argued
that the core issue of the case was the eviction of the respondents by reason
of non-payment of rents. The Municipal Court, he ratiocinated, allowed
the proceedings to drift away from the real issue. Instead of resolving the
legitimacy of eviction, it tried to determine ownership, which was beyond the jurisdiction
of the Municipal Court. Furthermore, the appellant maintained that the
ownership of the lands by the Corporacion had been recognized by the appellee
several times and that the following facts remained unopposed: (1) a contract
of tenancy existed; and (2) there was default in payment of rentals.
As a rejoinder, Don Paciano Rizal
Mercado asked the appellate court to affirm the judgment of the Court of First
Instance. He argued that under section
1546 of the Law on Civil Procedure, actions for eviction must be based on the
true ownership of the land in question. Thus, it was inevitable that land
titles must be presented from the very start. Although the core issue of the appealed case was the propriety of the
eviction of tenants, the land titles – the bases of ownership and of the
petitions for eviction – had not been shown. According to the appellee, the
failure of the plaintiff to present these titles as promised showed that it was
not trustworthy, thus, the Municipal Court properly declared its
petition for eviction, unreasonable.
The Court of First Instance of
Laguna resolved to nullify the assailed decision of the Municipal Court
of Calamba. The appellate court found the eviction of the tenants proper. A
restatement of the court’s deliberation is presented as follows:
1. The
issues raised by the appellant Corporacion (e.g. the appellee’s failure to pay
the agreed rents on time as stipulated in the contract of tenancy) remained
undisputed. These issues were not addressed head-on by the appellee but rather
vaguely.
2. On the
issue of land titles, the presentation of the same was deemed unnecessary. The
appellee himself, acknowledged the existence of tenancy when he claimed that in
1888, the appellant dispossessed him of his rented irrigated lands without due
process. The katihan (higher lake shorelines), the subject of the
present dispute, was also acknowledged to be a subject of a contract of
tenancy. These submissions, even in the absence of the land titles, were enough
incidents of ownership for purposes of commencing petition for eviction from
the said lands under Section 1546 of the Law on Civil Procedure.
3. When the
court conducted the trial based on evidence, it did not necessarily entail the
presentation of land titles evidencing ownership. The parties may present other
proofs of their positions. They may prove, for instance, the existence of
contract of tenancy or that the contract was still subsisting or that there was
no default in the payment of rents.
4. The
appellee admitted that his ascendants recognized not only the ownership of the
Corporacion of the subject lands but also the contract of tenancy. The
appellee, as a substitute and heir, inherited not only the rights and actions
of his ascendants but also their obligations entrenched in the terms and
conditions of the contract of tenancy. The appellee was thus estopped from
denying the Corporacion’s ownership to the lands in question.
5. The
primary basis of the appellee’s opposition to the prayer of eviction was the
non-presentation of land titles evidencing ownership. The presentation of land
titles, however, was not necessary in this case – which only looked at the
propriety of the prayed eviction. Land titles may be required in litigations
where the issue of ownership is in question.
6. The
existence of the contract of tenancy presupposed the acknowledgement of the
right of the appellant to pursue the case of eviction upon termination of the
tenancy and upon non-payment of rents which were due. As the appellee failed to
refute this allegation by presentation of receipts evidencing payment in
accordance with section 1561 of the Law on Civil Procedure, his eviction, as
prayed for by the appellant, must be granted.
7. The
appellee’s insistence and adamant stand in opposing the eviction manifested his
boldness and being unafraid to be held liable for damages under sections 355,
561, 1544 for the first case, and under sections 1546, 1547, 1561, and 564 of
the Law on Civil Procedure.
On 1 May
1890, Judge Celestino Dimayuga ordered Don Francisco Rizal Mercado to vacate
the lands in question within twenty (20) days. Judge Dimayuga also ordered the
Justice of the Peace to impose upon the appellee a fine amounting to one
hundred twenty five (125) peseta.[11] On 16 May 1890 , Don Francisco
Rizal Mercado was furnished with a copy of the said judgment.
The Appeals in Manila and in Madrid
Aggrieved,
the evictees immediately appealed the judgment before the Audiencia Real in
Manila . Since
the appeal, Don Paciano Rizal traveled to and fro following up the cases in
Laguna and Manila .[12] By the end of 1889, Don Telesforo Antonio Chuidian, a long-time Rizal family
friend, requested Atty. Felipe Buencamino, Sr. to defend the Rizal family before the Audiencia, which functioned as the Supreme Court. Atty. Buencamino accepted the case having in mind his personal connections with the magistrates of the said court and his friendship with the Marquis de Ahumada, the General Segundo Cabo.[13]
By December of 1890, twelve (12) more of the
evictees were added to Buencamino’s
safeguard. Atty. Buencamino’s strategy was to question
the flaws in the processes of the court. He, for instance, questioned the
summons to married women respondents without marital permissions. This is so
because he intended to delay the proceedings so that his clients, among others,
can harvest their crops. Personally, he doesn’t believe in the achievability of
his client’s position. “The Friars cannot justify their ownership of the lands
of Calamba,” he explained to Rizal, “but neither can your townsmen prove their
right to them.”[14]
He claimed
that successfully negotiated a viable agreement between parties which Rizal
purportedly rejected, because of which he withdrew his appearance from the
case. [15] On June 2, 1890, the Audiencia
dismissed the appeals of Don Francisco Rizal Mercado and Don Nicasio Eigasani
Alacala.[16] All of the sharecroppers
of the Rizals and Eigasanis, approximately 300 families, were ordered evicted
with them.
From the
dismissal, the appellants appealed before the Tribunal Supremo in Madrid . They executed
Powers of Attorney for Dr. Jose Rizal and Atty. Marcelo H. Del Pilar to
represent them before the said Tribunal and before the Minister of Colonies.[17] From
June 2, 1890, Atty. del Pilar have sixty (60) days to appeal before the Supreme
Court of Spain.[18] The Calambeños, never
really expected a favorable judgment from the Audiencia. “I’m not hoping for
any thing good to come out of it,” wrote their counsel, “there (in Spain )
perhaps one can still hope for something.”[19]
Jose Rizal was
in Brussels , Belgium
Through Rizal and Del Pilar, both being
prominent members of the Asociacion Hispano Filipina, the causes of the
Calambeños were espoused by the Asociacion. On 26 May 1890 , a complaint was filed by the
Asociacion before the Minister of Colonies questioning the banishment without
trial of prominent Calambeños to Mindoro .[21] On 30 January 1892 , the
Asociacion also filed a petition before the Minister of Colonies questioning
the acts of the colonial government in Calamba and the punitive orders of the
Governor-general Valeriano Weyler executing the Audiencia decision pending
appeal and banishing prominent Calambeños to Jolo and to other parts of the
country. Public meetings were also held to condemn those acts. [22] The
pleadings, however, fell on deaf ears.
Even before
the Asociacion filed a petition before the Minister of Colonies, thirty one
(31) Calamba families, who were dispossessed of their houses, presented the
dispossession issue for review before the Tribunal Supremo in Madrid in the middle of
December 1891. They were represented by Don Gumersindo de Azcarate. The legal
fees and other incidental expenses, amounting to 56-12/100 pounds sterling,
were sent to Madrid
through Dr. Jose Rizal.[23]
However, on 5 March 1892 ,
the procurator of the Supreme Court informed the counsel of the appellants in Manila , Atty. Jose Maria Gutierrez,
that the court had not received the legal fees. The procurator urged that
payments must be sent by telegraph to beat 8 March 1892 , the last day of payment. [24]
The Calamba
tenants, led by Don Aniceto Camoseng and Binay Elejorde, spent whole day looking
for money, offering diamonds, pearls and some jewels of the women of Calamba as
security. Socialite Doña Agustina Medel accompanied them and succeeded in
raising at least 500 pesos. Through Atty. Gutierrez, the sum was telegraphed to
Madrid on 6 March 1892 . [25]
Despite these efforts, however, their cases were also dismissed for lack of
merit.
A Proposed Compromise
In 1890, Fr.
Bernardino Nozaleda, a professor of the University
of Santo Tomas , was in Spain
waiting for his ordination as the Archbishop of Manila. He proposed a win–win
formula to solve the Calamba crisis to Marcelo H. Del Pilar. The latter was
said to have rejected it. Upon hearing of the said compromise, Don Paciano
Rizal expressed that the people of Calamba, tired of the unbearable situation,
were more than willing to give in. What did the people of Calamba want? Don
Paciano Rizal, in their behalf, expressed:
The
people do not wish to own this Estate because it was ceded to the Corporation
(of the friars) about 18… by Asanza (sic),[26] but they
know also that the original property did not have its present area that they
claim now. The most just and equitable settlement of this case is to define the
boundaries of the Estate, so that all the land not included in the original
sale or cession, can be declared free from the payment of rent, and the amount
of rent unjustly collected for it be returned. This is what should be done for
the sake of justice, although it leaves much to be desired with respect to the
tranquility of both sides…The settlement should be based on something more
enduring, such as the separation of their land-holdings through compensation…If
the proposed settlement will not hurt your cause there, you may suggest it in
order to put a respite to the unbearable situation of the people; otherwise I
think secondary interests should always be postponed.[27]
For his
part, Atty. Buencamino, through the mediation of Don Francisco Iriarte, Don
Vicente Reyes and some government officials, was able to draw the following
agreement with the Corporacion:
1. The Dominican fathers as owners of the Calamba
estate ceded the ownership of all lands comprising the area of the poblacion
of Calamba which involved about 100 quiñones valued at 1,000.00 pesos per
quiñon;
2. Accounts for rentals in arrears were all remitted;
3. In exchange, the accused acknowledged the ownership
by the Dominicans of the rest of the quiñones of the estate, and would pay only
ten percent of the canon in succeeding years.
Atty.
Buencamino claimed that the Rizal family, upon consultation with Jose Rizal in Europe , rejected the above concessions. This, however,
seemed unlikely for Don Paciano Rizal, the driving force behind the cases, was
open to compromise. At any rate, Buencamino withdrew his appearance from the
case. Buencamino believed that Jose Rizal considered the case from a political
viewpoint rather than from a private point of view. In other words, “Rizal was
pushing the Filipino people to the brink of a revolution through the simple act
of the tenants’ refusing to pay the friars’ canon for their supposed estate…”[28]
The
Calambeños detested Buencamino as their lawyer. He was janus-faced. Before
them, he promised that he would negotiate their case with the governor general
and work in Spain
for the lifting up of the deportation orders. Yet, before the Dominicans, he
disclosed that the Mindoro deportees had been
communicating with their relatives in Calamba about the bringing their
deportation cases to court. He was also reported to have amassed 2,000 pesos
from the insolvent Calambeños. Later, when prominent Calambeños were deported
to Jolo, he also obtained several smaller sums from the wives of the deportees.[29]
Buencamino was replaced by Atty. Jose Maria Gutierrez, a famous Spanish lawyer
and himself an anti-friar.[30]
On 14 August
1890, on the occasion of the execution of the eviction orders, Don Vicente
Ilagan, the lawyer of the hacienda, encouraged Don Francisco Rizal Mercado to
beg for a compromise with the Syndic. He replied that he would never resort to
shelling out any money. As ordered, Don Francisco left his family home and
lived with his daughter Narcisa.[31]
After the failed “attempts,” there seemed to be no serious effort for
compromise coming from both sides.
[7] Don
Paciano Rizal y Mercado was once a student of the Faculty of Civil Law of the University of Santo Tomas Manila : National Heroes Commission, 1964.
[18] Jose Rizal to Marcelo H.
del Pilar, Brussels ,
20 July 1890, Rizal’s Correspondence with Fellow Reformists (Manila:
National Historical Institute, 1992), 486.
[20]Jose Rizal to Marcelo H.
del Pilar, Brussels ,
18 July 1890, Rizal’s Correspondence with Fellow Reformists (Manila:
National Historical Institute, 1992), 485.
No comments:
Post a Comment