The maharlicas could not, after marriage, move from one village to another, or from one barangay to another, without paying a certain fine in gold, as arranged among them. This fine was larger or smaller according to the inclination of the different villages, running from one to three taels and a banquet to the entire barangay. Failure to pay the fine might result in a war between the barangay which the person left and the one which he entered. This Page 170applied equally to men and women, except that when one married a woman of another village, the children were afterwards divided equally between the two barangays. This arrangement kept them obedient to the dato, or chief, which is no longer the case—because, if the dato is energetic and commands what the religious fathers enjoin him, they soon leave him and go to other villages and other datos, who endure and protect them and do not order them about. This is the kind of dato that they now prefer, not him who has the spirit to command. There is a great need of reform in this, for the chiefs are spiritless and faint-hearted.
Investigations made and sentences passed by the dato must take place in the presence of those of his barangay. If any of the litigants felt himself aggrieved, an arbiter was unanimously named from another village or barangay, whether he were a dato or not; since they had for this purpose some persons, known as fair and just men, who were said to give true judgment according to their customs. If the controversy lay between two chiefs, when they wished to avoid war, they also convoked judges to act as arbiters; they did the same if the disputants belonged to two different barangays. In this ceremony they always had to drink, the plaintiff inviting the others.
They had laws by which they condemned to death a man of low birth who insulted the daughter or wife of a chief; likewise witches, and others of the same class.
They condemned no one to slavery, unless he merited the death-penalty. As for the witches, they killed them, and their children and accomplices became slaves of the chief, after he had made some Page 171recompense to the injured person. All other offenses were punished by fines in gold, which, if not paid with promptness, exposed the culprit to serve, until the payment should be made, the person aggrieved, to whom the money was to be paid. This was done in the following way: Half the cultivated lands and all their produce belonged to the master. The master provided the culprit with food and clothing, thus enslaving the culprit and his children until such time as he might amass enough money to pay the fine. If the father should by chance pay his debt, the master then claimed that he had fed and clothed his children, and should be paid therefor. In this way he kept possession of the children if the payment could not be met. This last was usually the case, and they remained slaves. If the culprit had some relative or friend who paid for him, he was obliged to render the latter half his service until he was paid—not, however, service within the house as aliping sa guiguilir, but living independently, as aliping namamahay. If the creditor were not served in this wise, the culprit had to pay the double of what was lent him. In this way slaves were made by debt: either sa guiguilir, if they served the master to whom the judgment applied; or aliping namamahay, if they served the person who lent them wherewith to pay.
In what concerns loans, there was formerly, and is today, an excess of usury, which is a great hindrance to baptism as well as to confession; for it turns out in the same way as I have showed in the case of the one under judgment, who gives half of his cultivated lands and profits until he pays the debt. The debtor is condemned to a life of toil; and thus borrowers Page 172become slaves, and after the death of the father the children pay the debt. Not doing so, double the amount must be paid. This system should and can be reformed.
As for inheritances, the legitimate children of a father and mother inherited equally, except in the case where the father and mother showed a slight partiality by such gifts as two or three gold taels, or perhaps a jewel.
When the parents gave a dowry to any son, and, when, in order to marry him to a chief's daughter, the dowry was greater than the sum given the other sons, the excess was not counted in the whole property to be divided. But any other thing that should have been given to any son, though it might be for some necessity, was taken into consideration at the time of the partition of the property, unless the parents should declare that such a bestowal was made outside of the inheritance. If one had had children by two or more legitimate wives, each child received the inheritance and dowry of his mother, with its increase, and that share of his father's estate which fell to him out of the whole. If a man had a child by one of his slaves, as well as legitimate children, the former had no share in the inheritance; but the legitimate children were bound to free the mother, and to give him something—a tael or a slave, if the father were a chief; or if, finally, anything else were given it was by the unanimous consent of all. If besides his legitimate children, he had also some son by a free unmarried woman, to whom a dowry was given but who was not considered as a real wife, all these were classed as natural children, although the child by the unmarried woman should have been begotten Page 173after his marriage. Such children did not inherit equally with the legitimate children, but only the third part. For example, if there were two children, the legitimate one had two parts, and the one of the inaasava one part. When there were no children by a legitimate wife, but only children by an unmarried woman, or inaasava, the latter inherited all. If he had a child by a slave woman, that child received his share as above stated. If there were no legitimate or natural child, or a child by an inaasava, whether there was a son of a slave woman or not, the inheritance went only to the father or grandparents, brothers, or nearest relatives of the deceased, who gave to the slave-child as above stated.
In the case of a child by a free married woman, born while she was married, if the husband punished the adulterer this was considered a dowry; and the child entered with the others into partition in the inheritance. His share equaled the part left by the father, nothing more. If there were no other sons than he, the children and the nearest relatives inherited equally with him. But if the adulterer were not punished by the husband of the woman who had the child, the latter was not considered as his child, nor did he inherit anything. It should be noticed that the offender was not considered dishonored by the punishment inflicted, nor did the husband leave the woman. By the punishment of the father the child was fittingly made legitimate.
Adopted children, of whom there are many among them, inherit the double of what was paid for their adoption. For example, if one gold tael was given that he might be adopted when the first father died, the child was given [in inheritance] two taels. But Page 174if this child should die first, his children do not inherit from the second father, for the arrangement stops at that point.
This is the danger to which his money is exposed, as well as his being protected as a child. On this account this manner of adoption common among them is considered lawful.