The report of the audiencia was forwarded to the court and was there reviewed by Francisco Leandro de Viana, formerly fiscal of the Audiencia of Manila and at that time a member of the Council. Viana recommended that not only should the desired permission be refused but a rigid investigation of the legitimacy of titles to properties held by the Augustinians should be made. He regarded as especially reprehensible the deliberate effort on the part of the provincial to obtain this permission from the governor in view of the unfavorable attitude of the Council of the Indies and of the laws ordering that licenses for the construction of convents should be given only by the Council of the Indies, after consultation with the prelate of the ecclesiastical district and with the audiencia, governor, or viceroy. [800] In this way, due very largely to the influence of the audiencia, the efforts of this order to extend its authority were checkmated. This may be considered as a typical case of the intervention of the audiencia in behalf of the royal patronage. It will be noted in another connection that the audiencia was called upon, from 1680 to 1720, partly as a tribunal of justice and partly as an agent of the royal patron, to investigate the titles of the lands of the friars, and, by this proceeding, the tribunal deprived the orders of much of the property which they had usurped. [801] It may also be noted that an oidor regularly inspected the royal hospital at Manila, [802] and when prelates and curates were transferred from one district or parish to another, property left by them was inventoried and taken under the direction of the audiencia. [803] These measures were designed to insure the security and conservation of royal property.